I am working on a project about comparing second-order CFA between two groups.
Suppose there are four constructs x, y,z, m x has several measurement scales, x1, x2,x 3,.... y has several measurement scales, y1, y2, y3..... z has several measurement scales, z1, z2, z3,.... I also link m (no measurement scale)--> x, m-> y, m->z.
Because it is the second-order CFA, among three paths m->x,m->y, m->z, one of them has to be restricted to 1. When I compare the second-order CFA, how can I compare the path that is already restricted to 1? Suppose the path m->x is restricted to 1. After I compare the path m->y, m->z, can I free the path m->z, but restrict m->y as 1. And then I compare the path m->x. Is it possible?
Thank you very much for your help. It is really helpful for me!
I wanted to examine a second order CFA component prior to testing my larger SEM model. One of my construct is given below:
USEVARIABLES ARE X1-X12; CATEGORICAL ARE X1-X12; MISSING ARE ALL (-99); MODEL: F1 BY X1 X2; F2 BY X3 X4; F3 BY X5-X8; F4 BY X9-X12; F5 BY F1 F2 F3 F4;
OUTPUT: Standardized; modindices;
It’s failing to provide estimates since the number of iterations exceeded and no convergence was achieved.
Is the problem caused by the fact that F1 and F2 have only two first-order factor indicators? A colleague ran the same model in AMOS which provided various estimates and fit statistics. Although the output appeared normal, I was concerned that the estimator used was MLE while in the presence of ordinal indictors.
I am currently running Mplus version 6.0.
Any insight or suggestions would be much appreciated.