I am running a cfa and have found that two of the scales have both positive and negative loadings. I have examined the data set, checked the wording of the items, etc. Additionally, these scales have been used in prior research and so, from my perspective, should be valid. Do you have any thoughts as to why this might be occurring? Thank you!
In an initial attempt to identify factors in the data set I am using, I did a PCA using SPSS, and the 5 indicators for the factor (teacher/student relationship) were positive. When doing the CFA using Mplus, two of these factor indicators remain positive but three are now negative. This occurred for another factor, as well. Additionally, I did an EFA using Mplus and the results were quite different from the SPSS results. I guess I am just wondering if, being a new Mplus user, I have made an error that is causing these differing results. Thank you.
It sounds like you are not reading your data correctly. Do a TYPE=BASIC with no MODEL command and see if your sample statistics look correct and your sample size is correct. You may have blanks in your data. This is not allowed with free format data.
Could be a problem but doesn't have to be. You may want to discuss model fitting strategies on SEMNET.
Erin Taylor posted on Monday, September 10, 2018 - 10:58 am
I am running a CFA for a latent construct with 5 measured indicators.
2 of the indicators have negative loadings, whereas the other 3 have positive loadings. The descriptive correlations also support this.
Is it necessary for me to reverse score the data so that all loadings are in the same direction before generating factor scores?
But doesn't this assume that only the "question" may be worded negatively (and not the item scaling)? What if the original directions of the item scaling are what I am interested in (for example, higher values equal greater amounts of the construct even though they are negatively correlated) - in this case, is it OK to construct factor scores with the non-reversed items?