Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Construct Validation: An Empirical Review

By C. Distefano, Brian Hess. 2005

378 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Management Science and Operations Research, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6f4bfc6fd54b0d07a10a63a44585356540417e6c

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 Management Science and Operations Research

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The meanings of branded products: A cross-national scale development and meaning assessment (2008, background): “Research in several domains indicates that CFA is to be preferred when there is a sufficient theoretical and empirical basis for data specification (DiStefano & Hess, 2005; Fabrigar, Wegener, McCallum, & Strahan, 1999; Floyd & Widaman, 1995; Gerbing & Hamilton, 1996).”
Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. (2009, background): “In the most detailed review of CFA studies, DiStefano and Hess (2005) examined 101 articles in four assessment journals (Psychological Assessment, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Assessment, and Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment) over a 12- year period (1990—2002).”
The performance of MLR, USLMV, and WLSMV estimation in structural regression models with ordinal variables (2014, methodology): “DiStefano and Hess (2005) reviewed 101 studies in CFA from 1990 to 2002, and reported that the median sample size was 377, and about 19% of the models were tested on samples of less than 200.”
A Comparison of Diagonal Weighted Least Squares Robust Estimation Techniques for Ordinal Data (2014, methodology): “To approximate a realistic CFA model, the model size, number of items per factor, sample sizes, and parameter values corresponded to typical (i.e., median) values as identified by a review of approximately 100 empirical CFA studies (DiStefano & Hess, 2005).”
Measuring Loneliness Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults: The UCLA and de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scales (2014, methodology): “95 was considered excellent fit (DiStefano and Hess 2005; Hu and Bentler 1999); and for both the RMSEA and the SRMR, a value of \.”
Examination of the Weighted Root Mean Square Residual: Evidence for Trustworthiness? (2018, background): “Although lower loadings (i.e., effect sizes) tend to be associated with lower power, the values used here (.50) are generally not considered low with applied research (DiStefano & Hess, 2005).”