Message/Author |
|
Abdel posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 4:34 am
|
|
|
I did a multigroup CFA on categorical data and I had 2 questions about the output: 1. If I get a chi-square with p-value=0.000, CFI=.989, TLI=.992, RMSEA=.015 and WRMR=1.530, can I then conclude that it was a good fit? The p-value and the rest of the statistics seem to contradict each other here.. 2. Where can I see the factor loadings that can be compared to the loadings that an EFA gives for the same data? I hope you can help me out, thanks in advance! |
|
|
1. You don't mention your sample size. If it is very large, chi-square can be sensitive as it is a test of exact fit. You can do a sensitivity analysis by freeing the parameters until you obtain an acceptable p-value. If the original model results have not changed, you can assume that chi-square was sensitive to large sample size. 2. Compare to the factor loadings you obtain from the STDYX standardization. |
|
Abdel posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 11:58 am
|
|
|
I had a sample size of about 7000, and compared four groups within that sample with the multigroup CFA of about 900, 1000, 2000 and 3000.. |
|
|
I would do a sensitivity analysis. |
|
|
Dear Dr. Muthén, I performed a CFA analysis with MLR (N=1180) on 26 items and 5 factors. RMSEA (0.048 p=0.896) and SRMR (0.057) indicate good fit, but CFI (0.896) is not acceptable. What should I conclude from it? Is there any other index that I should add? Thank you for your suggestions. |
|
|
How does TLI and Chi-square look? |
|
|
Dear Dr. Muthén, Chi square=955.9 df=261 TLI=0.881 This CFA model is the result of an E/CFA analysis. Thanks, Robert |
|
|
The model does not seem to fit the data well. If this is an EFA in a CFA framework, you should obtain the same fit as the EFA. So perhaps five factors is not optimal. |
|
Back to top |