Item Parceling in Structural Equation Modeling: A Primer
By Masaki Matsunaga. 2008
886 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Information Systems and Management, Management Science and Operations Research
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/02233a87a541ca5125f7c8999457869ffc238a41
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Computer Networks and Communications
In Information Systems and Management
In Management Science and Operations Research
Citations in the corpus
- The Silver Lining of Materialism: The Impact of Luxury Consumption on Subjective Well-Being (2012, methodology): “which are aggregates of single items, can distil the common elements among those items that are underlying the latent factor (Matsunaga 2008).”
- Teacher support, instructional practices, student motivation, and mathematics achievement in high school (2018, methodology): “In addition, to simplify the measure of teacher support and improve the fit of the measurement model (Matsunaga, 2008), we reduced the number of items by creating a composite variable.”
- Does Anger Expression Help or Harm Leader Effectiveness? The Role of Competence-based versus Integrity-based Violations and Abusive Supervision (2017, positive): “Using a parcelling approach (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002;Matsunaga, 2008;Williams&O’Boyle, 2008; see also Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013; Marsh, Ludtke, Nagengast, Morin, & von Davier, 2013 regarding theon-goingdebateon this issue), themodel hasagood fitwith…”
- The power of empowering leadership: allowing and encouraging followers to take charge of their own jobs (2019, methodology): “subscales, and we therefore relied on the item parceling method (e.g., Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013; Matsunaga, 2008).”
- Small Sample Size Solutions (2020, methodology): “Table 14.1 provides a summary of the benefits of parceling (for thorough reviews of the benefits of parceling, see Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002; Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013; Matsunaga, 2008).”
- Why the Items versus Parcels Controversy Needn’t Be One (2013, background): “…can lead to biased estimates of other model parameters (e.g., structural parameters; Bandalos & Finney, 2001; Hall et al., 1999; Kim & Hagtvet, 2003; Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000; Little et al., 2002; Matsunaga, 2008; Meade & Kroustalis, 2006; Rogers & Schmitt, 2004; Sass & Smith, 2006).”
- Examining Structural Relationships between Work Engagement, Organizational Procedural Justice, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovative Work Behavior for Sustainable Organizations (2017, methodology): “model of innovative work behavior as shown in Figure 1 [68].”
- Daily strengths use and employee well‐being: The moderating role of personality (2018, methodology): “In order to restrict the number of indicators due to low sample size (Matsunaga, 2008), we modelled work engagement using three parcel scores reflecting vigour, dedication, and absorption, andmodelled positive affect by using”
- Transformational Leadership and Well-Being in Sports: The Mediating Role of Need Satisfaction (2014, methodology): “The TTQ items were randomly assigned into three parcels (instead of for example subscale scores) because of the unidimensional factor structure found in the CFA (see Matsunaga, 2008, for a discussion about item parceling strategies).”