Preliminary Proactive Sample Size Determination for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models

References

• AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155–173. doi:10.1007/BF02294170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BarrettP. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• BollenK. A.LongJ.S. (Eds.). Testing structural equation models. : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• BoomsmaA. (1982). Robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In JöreskogK. G.WoldH. (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction: Part I (pp. 149–173). : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• GagnéP.HancockG. R. (2006). Measurement model quality, sample size, and solution propriety in confirmatory factor models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 65–83. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4101_5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HairJ. F.BlackW.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• HancockG. R. (2006). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 69–115). : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.du ToitS. H. C.SorbomD. (Eds.) Structural equation modeling: Past and present. A Festschrift in honor of Karl G. Jöreskog (pp. 195–261). : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• HerzogW.BoomsmaA.ReineckeS. (2007). The model-size effect on traditional and modified tests of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 361–390. doi:10.1080/10705510701301602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JacksonD. L. (2001). Sample size and the number of parameter estimates in maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis: A Monte Carlo investigation. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 205–223. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0802_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JacksonD. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 128–141. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JacksonD. L.VothJ.FreyM. P. (2013). A note on sample size and solution propriety for confirmatory factor analytic models. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 86–97. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.742388
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JöreskogK. G.SörbomD. (2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows [Computer software]. : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• KennyD. A.McCoachD. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 333–351. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KimK. H. (2005). The relation among fit indexes, power, and sample size in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 368–390. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1203_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MarcoulidesG. A.ChinW. (2013). You write, but others read: Common methodological misunderstandings in PLS and related methods. In AbdiH.ChinW.VinziV. E.RussolilloG.TrincheraL. (Eds.), New perspectives in partial least squares and related methods (pp. 31–64). : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MarshH. W.HauK. T.BallaJ. R.GraysonD. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181–220. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MuellerR. O.HancockG. R. (2010). Structural equation modeling. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 371–383). : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MuthénB. O. (2002, March 22). Using Mplus Monte Carlo simulations in practice: A note on assessing estimation quality and power in latent variable models (Mplus Web Notes No. 1). Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/mc1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• MuthénB. O.AsparouhovT. (2002, March 22). Using Mplus Monte Carlo simulations in practice: A note on non-normal missing data in latent variable models (Mplus Web Notes No. 2). Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/mc2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 599–620. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H.BergeJ. M. T. (1967). Psychometric theory (Vol. 226). : Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• RaykovT. (2004). Estimation of maximal reliability: A note on a covariance structure modelling approach. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 21–27. doi:10.1348/000711004849295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SatorraA.SarisW. E. (1985). Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 83–90. doi:10.1007/BF02294150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TanakaJ. S. (1987). “How big is big enough?” Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with latent variables. Child Development, 58, 134–146. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130296
   Google Scholar
• VelicerW. F.FavaJ. L. (1987). An evaluation of the effects of variable sampling on component, image, and factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 193–209. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2202_4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WestlandJ. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 476–487. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WolfE. J.HarringtonK. M.ClarkS. L.MillerM. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 913–934. doi:10.1177/0013164413495237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar