Recovery Accuracy of Measurement Model and Structural Coefficients of Extended Bifactor-(S-1) and (S·I-1) Models

References

• Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov& F. Csaki(Eds.), Second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267–281). Akadémiai Kiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Beaujean, A. A. (2015). John Carroll’s views on intelligence: Bi-factor vs. higher-order models. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 121–136. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3040121
   Google Scholar
• Bonifay, W., & Cai, L. (2017). On the complexity of item response theory models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52, 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1309262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt, N. D., Becker, M., Tetzner, J., Brunner, M., & Kuhl, P. (2021). What teachers and parents can add to personality ratings of children: Unique associations with academic performance in elementary school. European Journal of Personality, 35, 814–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020988436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, G. L., Geiser, C., Servera, M., Becker, S. P., & Beauchaine, T. P. (2020). Application of the Bifactor S-1 appropriate bifactor model for symptom ratings. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 48, 881–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00608-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canivez, G. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2016). Review of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth edition: Critique, commentary, and independent analyses. In A. S. Kaufman (Ed.), Intelligence testing with the WISC-V (pp. 683–702). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• DiStefano, C., & Morgan, G. B. (2014). A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dombrowski, S. C., Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Beaujean, A. A. (2015). Exploratory bifactor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition with 16 primary and secondary subtests. Intelligence, 53, 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dombrowski, S. C., McGill, R. J., Watkins, M. W., Canivez, G. L., Pritchard, A. E., & Jacobson, L. A. (2021). Will the real theoretical structure of the WISC-V please stand up? Implications for clinical interpretation. Contemporary School Psychology, 26, 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-021-00365-6
   Google Scholar
• Dombrowski, S. C., McGill, R. J., & Morgan, G. B. (2021). Monte Carlo modeling of contemporary intelligence test (IQ) factor structure: Implications for IQ assessment, interpretation, and theory. Assessment, 28, 977–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119869828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway, A. R. A., & Kovacs, K. (2015). New and emerging models of human intelligence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 6, 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eid, M., Geiser, C., Koch, T., & Heene, M. (2017). Anomalous results in G-factor models: Explanations and alternatives. Psychological Methods, 22, 541–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000083
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eid, M., Krumm, S., Koch, T., & Schulze, J. (2018). Bifactor models for predicting criteria by general and specific factors: Problems of nonidentifiability and alternative solutions. Journal of Intelligence, 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030042
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elliot, C. D. (2007). Differential Ability Scale (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Feinberg, R. A., & Rubright, J. D. (2016). Conducting simulation studies in psychometrics. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 35, 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, S., & Yang, Y. (2018). Empirical underidentification with the bifactor mode: A case study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78, 717–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417719947.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson, J.-E., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinrich, M., Zagorscak, P., Eid, M., & Knaevelsrud, C. (2020). Giving G a meaning: An application of the bifactor-(S-1) approach to realize a more symptom-oriented modeling of the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Assessment, 27, 1429–1447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118803738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor model. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287965
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Múthen, B., Kaplan, D., & Hollis, M. (1987). On the structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 52, 431–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, A. L., & Johnson, W. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pokropek, A., Davidov, E., & Schmidt, P. (2019). A Monte Carlo simulation study to assess the appropriateness of traditional and newer approaches to test for measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26, 724–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1561293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org
   Google Scholar
• Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of the bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise, S. P., Cook, K. F., & Moore, T. M. (2015). Evaluating the impact multidimensionality on unidimensional item response theory model parameters. In S. P. Reise& D. A. Revicki(Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 13–40). Routlege.
   Google Scholar
• Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 223–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, G. E. (1978). Estimating the dimensions of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2958889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler intelligence scale for children – fifth edition. NCS Pearson.
   Google Scholar