2044-8317/asset/olbannerleft.png?v=1&s=8856da07bc63124271bd41692effae1b4eb4d01b)
2044-8317/asset/olbannerright.png?v=1&s=0e71c188d8e53b18773ec432a90707d049af0643)
A Monte Carlo study comparing PIV, ULS and DWLS in the estimation of dichotomous confirmatory factor analysis
Article first published online: 24 APR 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02044.x
© 2012 The British Psychological Society
Issue
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
Volume 66, Issue 1, pages 127–143, February 2013
Additional Information
How to Cite
Nestler, S. (2013), A Monte Carlo study comparing PIV, ULS and DWLS in the estimation of dichotomous confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66: 127–143. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02044.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 17 JAN 2013
- Article first published online: 24 APR 2012
- Received 17 June 2011; revised version received 31 January 2012
Abstract
We conducted a Monte Carlo study to investigate the performance of the polychoric instrumental variable estimator (PIV) in comparison to unweighted least squares (ULS) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) in the estimation of a confirmatory factor analysis model with dichotomous indicators. The simulation involved 144 conditions (1,000 replications per condition) that were defined by a combination of (a) two types of latent factor models, (b) four sample sizes (100, 250, 500, 1,000), (c) three factor loadings (low, moderate, strong), (d) three levels of non-normality (normal, moderately, and extremely non-normal), and (e) whether the factor model was correctly specified or misspecified. The results showed that when the model was correctly specified, PIV produced estimates that were as accurate as ULS and DWLS. Furthermore, the simulation showed that PIV was more robust to structural misspecifications than ULS and DWLS.