Bayesian Versus Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Multitrait–Multimethod Confirmatory Factor Models

REFERENCES

• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2010). Bayesian analysis using Mplus: Technical implementation. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/download/Bayes3.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bandalos, D. L., & Gagné, P. (2012). Simulation methods in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 92–110). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methods Research, 16, 78–116. doi:10.1177/0049124187016001004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brannick, M. T., & Spector, P. E. (1990). Estimation problems in the block-diagonal model of the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 325–339. doi:10.1177/014662169001400401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne, M. W. (1984). The decomposition of multi-trait multi-method matrices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 1–21. doi:10.1111/bmsp.1984.37.issue-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & O’Connell, E. J. (1967). Method factors in multi-trait multi-method matrices: Multiplicative rather than additive? Multivariate Behavior Research, 2, 409–426. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0204_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & O’Connell, E. J. (1982). Methods as diluting trait relationships rather than adding irrelevant systematic variance. In D. Brinberg & L. Kidder (Eds.), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Forms of validity research (pp. 93–111). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Castro-Schilo, L., Grimm, K. J., & Widaman, K. F. (2016). Augmenting the correlated trait–correlated method model for multitrait–multimethod data. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 798–818.
   Google Scholar
• Castro-Schilo, L., Widaman, K. F., & Grimm, K. J. (2013). Neglect the structure of multitrait–multimethod data at your peril: Implications for associations with external variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 181–207. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.769385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 584–594. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.4.584
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway, J. M., Lievens, F., Scullen, S. E., & Lance, C. E. (2004). Bias in the correlated uniqueness model for MTMM data. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 535–559. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1104_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cote, J. A., & Buckley, R. M. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across seventy construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315–318. doi:10.2307/3151642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait–multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65, 241–261. doi:10.1007/BF02294377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2006). Structural equation models for multitrait–multimethod data. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 283–299). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, J. P. (2010). Bayesian item response modeling: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Geiser, C., Koch, T., & Eid, M. (2014). Data-generating mechanisms versus constructively-defined latent variables in multitrait–multimethod analysis: A comment on Castro-Schilo, Widaman, and Grimm (2013). Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 509–523. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.919816
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression andmultilevel/hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7, 457–472.
   Google Scholar
• Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1987). Improper solutions in the analysis of covariance structures: Their interpretability and a comparison of alternative respecifications. Psychometrika, 52, 99–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gieser, C., Koch, T., & Eid, M. (2014). Data-generating mechanisms versus constructively defined latent variables: A comment on Castro-Schilo, Widaman, and Grimm (2013). Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 509–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grayson, D., & Marsh, H. W. (1994). Identification with deficient rank loading matrices in confirmatory factor analysis: Multitrait–multimethod models. Psychometrika, 59, 121–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregory, P. (2005). Bayesian logical data analysis for the physical sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. A. (1976). An empirical application of confirmatory factor analysis to the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 247–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait–multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 165–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lance, C. E., & Fan, Y. (2016). Convergence, admissibilty, and fit of alternative confirmatory factor analysis models for MTMM data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76, 487–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lance, C. E., Noble, C. L., & Scullen, S. E. (2002). A critique of the correlated trait-correlated method and correlated uniqueness models for multitrait-multimethod data. Psychological Methods, 7, 228–244.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, S. Y. (2007). Structural equation modeling. A Bayesian approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Assessing the convergent and discriminant validity of Goldberg’s international personality item pool a multitrait–multimethod examination. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 29–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunn, D., Thomas, A., Best, N., & Spiegelhalter, D. (2000). WinBUGS — A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing, 10, 325–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCallum, R. C., Edwards, M. C., & Cai, L. (2012). Hopes and cautions in implementing Bayesian structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 17, 340–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W. (1989). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait–multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., & Bailey, M. (1991). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait–multimethod data: A comparison of alternative models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 47–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Craven, R. (1992). Overcoming problems in confirmatory factor analyses of MTMM data: The correlated uniqueness model and factorial invariance. Multivariate Behavior Research, 27, 489–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1995). Latent variable models of multitrait–multimethod data. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 177–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, J. K., & McDonald, R. P. (1975). Bayesian estimation in unrestricted factor analysis: A treatment for heywood cases. Psychometrika, 40, 505–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012a). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012b). Rejoinder to MacCallum, Edwards, and Cai (2012) and Rindskopf (2012): Mastering a new method. Psychological Methods, 17, 346–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.
   Google Scholar
• Rupp, A. A., Dey, D. K., & Zumbo, B. D. (2004). To Bayes or not to Bayes, from whether to when: Applications of Bayesian methodology to modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 424–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheines, R., Hoijtnik, H., & Boomsma, A. (1999). Bayesian estimation and testing of structural equation models. Psychometrika, 64, 37–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, X. Y., & Lee, S. Y. (2012). Basic and advanced Bayesian structural equation modeling: With applications in the medical and behavioral sciences. Chichester, England: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Vazire, S., Wilson, R. E., Solomon, B., Bollich, K., Harris, K., Weston, S., & Jackson, J. J. (2015). Personality and interpersonal roles (PAIRS). Study in progress.
   Google Scholar
• Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait–multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, R. E., Harris, K., & Vazire, S. (2015). Personality and friendship satisfaction in daily life: Do everyday social interactions account for individual differences in friendship satisfaction? European Journal of Personality, 29, 173–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wothke, W. (1984). The estimation of trait and method components in multitrait-multimethod measurements. Unpublished dissertation, Chicago, The University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Wothke, W., & Browne, M. W. (1990). The direct product model for the MTMM matrix parameterized as a second order factor analysis model. Psychometrika, 55, 255–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, Y., & Mackinnon, D. P. (2009). Bayesian mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 14, 301–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar