2016
DOI: 10.1177/0971890716672933
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) as an Analytical Technique to Assess Measurement Error in Survey Research

Abstract: Common method variance (CMV), a systematic measurement error, is a key source of contamination in survey research. This article examines a potential source of CMV—socially desirable responding (SDR)—in the context of Indian culture. The statistical remedies of method variance have been critically evaluated for their suitability to capture SDR. The statistical remedy of ‘controlling for the effect of a directly measured latent method factor’ using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been profoundly explained… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
23
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In order to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis, we checked the Bartlett's sphericity test to ensure inter-item co ela ion [ 2 = 1493.61, df = 120, p < .001] and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Indice [KMO= .79] for the sample adequacy (Cerny & Kaiser, 1977;Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974;IBM, 2011). To test the reliability of the proposed structure we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a structural model using AMOS plugin in SPSS (figure 3) using a variance-covariance matrix with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation (Mishra, 2016). ML estimation is more reliable in many cases than others and is widely used (Bollen, 1989).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis, we checked the Bartlett's sphericity test to ensure inter-item co ela ion [ 2 = 1493.61, df = 120, p < .001] and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Indice [KMO= .79] for the sample adequacy (Cerny & Kaiser, 1977;Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974;IBM, 2011). To test the reliability of the proposed structure we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a structural model using AMOS plugin in SPSS (figure 3) using a variance-covariance matrix with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation (Mishra, 2016). ML estimation is more reliable in many cases than others and is widely used (Bollen, 1989).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The chi‐square test is highly sensitive to sample size, a high correlation between the dimensions in the questionnaire and error variance in the model (Kline, 2011). Thus, other fit indexes often receive more attention (Mishra, 2016; Polit & Yang, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Mishra (2016), some plausible explanations of error variances might be that respondents have limited experience with the construct, the respondents might not have understood the meaning of the items, or they respond according to social desirability. Cote and Buckley (1987) claim that abstract constructs may be more challenging to measure than concrete constructs are and measurement error in social science research within the education discipline accounts for 30.5% of the variance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To mitigate the problem, Podsakoff et al (2012) recommend the following steps: (a) detect one or more likely sources of method bias, (b) manipulate them in the design of the study, and (c) test if the hypothesised estimates of the relationships among the constructs generalise across conditions. Sources of method bias are detected by observing the most extreme responses (MRS), which are items with the highest loading factor in confirmatory factor analysis (Mishra, 2016). Those items are excluded, and the model is recalculated.…”
Section: Instrument Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%