Posted by
Ryan on
Apr 22, 2013; 9:30pm
URL: http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/AMOS-ERROR-MEASSAGE-tp4667749p5719646.html
There's nothing "wrong" with a cross-loading, as long as it can be justified statistically and substantively. One of the most widely used IQ tests presents, in the latest manual, a second-order CFA with a cross-loading between a manifest variable and one of the first-order factors, as a way to validate the factorial structure the developers expected.
As David pointed out, parsimony is always preferred, but if there is good reason and empirical data to suggest a more complex model explains the data better than the "cleaner model," then so be it.
So, this is also about cross-loadings as I initially indicated, in addition to redundant variables? Boy is it hard to follow this thread!
David, is the OP only emailing you? Maybe my gmail is filtering SPSS-L emails.
Ryan
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 22, 2013, at 4:46 PM, David Marso <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1. Nuke the dups.
> 2. Draw paths from the appropriate latents to the observed.
> AFAIK: There is nothing forbidden about having a variable load on more than
> one latent variable.
> OTOH: The nature of that observed variable violates basic concepts of simple
> structure favored in the factor analytic world. Not much more to say on
> that.
> --
>
> kammel wrote > Doc8.doc
> <
http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/file/n5719640/Doc8.doc>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> I have changed the format of the document.
>>
>> Thank you for answering my question. I have read a sufficient amount to
>> identify why the covariance matrix is NPD. My question to the group,
>> really is what are my other options for assessing the fit of the model.
>> Not, why has this occurred.
>>
>> As mentioned before, there have been subsequent published analyses of the
>> construct validity of the IDP. These have failed to mention how they dealt
>> with the cross loading items. In addition, there is no mention of this
>> issue in text books or statistical journal articles.
>>
>> I will take your advice to 'have one copy of any given variable'. I was
>> tempted to do so (through common sense and no guiding theory) but was
>> seeking the opinion of those more experienced in statistical analyses at
>> such a high level.
>>
>> Thank you for your time and patience.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> Please reply to the list and not to my personal email.
> Those desiring my consulting or training services please feel free to email me.
> ---
> "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
> Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire off sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
> --
> View this message in context:
http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/AMOS-ERROR-MEASSAGE-tp4667749p5719643.html> Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> =====================
> To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
>
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
> command. To leave the list, send the command
> SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
> For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
> INFO REFCARD
=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD