Second-order factor analysis PreviousNext
Mplus Discussion > Categorical Data Modeling >
Message/Author
 Anonymous posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 1:30 am
I have a CFA model including 22 indicators and 6 factors. The types of these observed variables are ordinal one with 3 categories. I use MPLUS 2.01 to estimate the model, and it fits good. However, when I wanna set up a second-order factor, it can't work well.
Part of original programs are presented as follows:

TITLE: problem behavior

DATA: FILE IS e:\pro-beha.dat;

VARIABLE: NAMES ARE y1-y22 grade;
USEV = y1-y22;
CATEGORICAL = y1-y22;

ANALYSIS: TYPE = MEANSTRUCTURE;
ESTIMATOR = WLSMV;

MODEL:
abs BY y1* y2 y9;
bul BY y6* y14 y17;
lie BY y7* y8 y10 y11 y15 y16;
des BY y12* y13;
ego BY y18* y19-y22;
dru by y3* y4 y5;

problem by abs@bul@lie@des@ego@dru@1;

OUTPUT:


THE STANDARD ERRORS OF THE MODEL PARAMETER ESTIMATES COULD NOT BE
COMPUTED. THE MODEL MAY NOT BE IDENTIFIED. CHECK YOUR MODEL.
PROBLEM INVOLVING PARAMETER 73.

Because it is my first time to use Mplus, I can't find what is wrong in my inp file. Would you please help me to modify it? thanks a lot!
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 2:02 pm
One problem that I see is that your first-order factors are not identified because you have freed the first factor loading of each one but have not set the metric of the factor by then fixing the factor variances to one. Either one loading needs to be set to one for each factor or the factor variance needs to be set to one.

Another problem is the BY statement for the second-order factor. It looks like you are fixing all of the factor loadings which I don't understand. See Example 17.2 in the Mplus User's Guide to see how a second-order factor model is set up.
 Lisa M. Yarnell posted on Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 3:37 am
Hello Dr. Muthen,

I learned in SEM class that a sufficiently high loading of a measured variable onto a latent factor is .3 or higher (though researchers should also consider sample size when using this rule of thumb--so other rules of thumb such as .4, or the requirement that the loading be statistically significant, can also be used).

Is it generally thought that loadings of first-order factors onto a higher-order factor also be .3, in order to justify a higher-order model as opposed to using a group of intercorrelated first-order factors in your structural model? If one first-order factor only loads at .1 or .2, while others load a .3 or higher, would you have to remove the low-loading first-order factors, since your data do not justify your hypothesized model?

Or can a higher-order model be justified by theory alone (whether literature states that the trait being measured should have this higher-order structure)? Or can a higher-order model be justified with statistics other than the loadings of first-order factors, such as good fit of the higher-order model as a whole, based on indices such as the RMSEA, CFI, and TLI?

Thank you for your time,
Lisa Yarnell
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Sunday, October 23, 2011 - 7:38 pm
I am not a proponent of rules of thumb. I would instead be guided by theory, model fit, and significance of factor loadings. You may find the following paper interesting:

Cudeck, R., & O’Dell, L. L. (1994). Applications of standard error estimates in unrestricted factor analysis: Significance tests for factor loadings and correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 475–487.
 Lisa M. Yarnell posted on Sunday, October 23, 2011 - 9:31 pm
Thanks, Dr. Muthen.
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: