1
$\begingroup$

I am trying to evaluate the psychometric properties of a questionnaire instrument using bifactor SEM. A bifactor model with five group factors has the best fit, and this model has “good” RMSEA and SRMR. However, CFI and TLI are low (around .85). The psychometric coefficients derived from this model (e.g., omega hierarchical) paint a pretty dismal picture of how the instrument is performing. So, how do I interpret this? I can see three possible conclusions and would appreciate your help sorting them out:

  1. I trust the model despite its lower CFI/TLI and conclude that the instrument is psychometrically problematic
  2. I distrust the model due to its lower CFI/TLI and conclude that I don't know what the instrument's psychometric performance is
  3. I assume that a good instrument “should” fit a bifactor model and take its lower CFI/TLI as evidence of poor psychometric performance

Thanks in advance!

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ How does the bifactor fit compare with a single factor? $\endgroup$
    – Jeremy Miles
    Nov 10, 2018 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ @JeremyMiles For a single-factor CFA, fit is worse than it was for the bifactor model (CFI = .452 and RMSEA = .095). $\endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Girard
    Nov 10, 2018 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ Question about how the model is being run: ¿is the software you are using including/excluding correlations between the different latent factor sets? $\endgroup$
    – Gregg H
    Dec 13, 2018 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ The latent factors are all uncorrelated. $\endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Girard
    Dec 13, 2018 at 19:34

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.