Publication Date
| In 2026 | 1 |
| Since 2025 | 116 |
| Since 2022 (last 5 years) | 506 |
| Since 2017 (last 10 years) | 1443 |
| Since 2007 (last 20 years) | 3553 |
Descriptor
Source
Author
Publication Type
Education Level
Audience
| Researchers | 104 |
| Practitioners | 15 |
| Counselors | 9 |
| Teachers | 7 |
| Administrators | 5 |
| Policymakers | 2 |
| Students | 2 |
| Community | 1 |
Location
| Turkey | 279 |
| China | 149 |
| Australia | 127 |
| Canada | 123 |
| United States | 110 |
| Hong Kong | 89 |
| Spain | 79 |
| Germany | 76 |
| Netherlands | 71 |
| South Korea | 65 |
| Italy | 59 |
| More ▼ | |
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewedEdwards, Jeffrey R.; O'Neill, Regina M. – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate alternative factor structures, based on previous exploratory factor analyses and coping dimensions derived from the theory of R. Lazarus, for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (S. Folkman and R. Lazarus, 1988). Results from responses of 654 college graduates provide little support for the factor…
Descriptors: College Graduates, Construct Validity, Coping, Factor Structure
Peer reviewedLawrence, Frank R.; Hancock, Gregory R. – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1999
Used simulated data to test the integrity of orthogonal factor solutions when varying sample size, factor pattern/structure coefficient magnitude, method of extraction, number of variables, number of factors, and degree of overextraction. Discusses implications of results with regard to overextraction. (SLD)
Descriptors: Factor Analysis, Factor Structure, Orthogonal Rotation, Sample Size
Peer reviewedMarkus, Keith A. – Structural Equation Modeling, 2000
Explores the four-step procedure for testing structural equation models and outlines some problems with the approach advocated by L. Hayduk and D. Glaser (2000) and S. Mulaik and R. Milsap (2000). Questions the idea that there is a "correct" number of constructs for a given phenomenon. (SLD)
Descriptors: Factor Analysis, Factor Structure, Research Methodology, Structural Equation Models
Peer reviewedClapham, Maria M. – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998
The structure of subscores obtained through streamlined scoring of 334 adults' responses to Figural Forms A and B of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (P. Torrance, 1966) was analyzed. Principal components analyses indicated that one general creativity factor adequately represented subscores of both forms. However, the five subscores of each…
Descriptors: Adults, Creative Thinking, Creativity, Factor Structure
Peer reviewedMillsap, Roger E. – Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1998
Two theorems are presented that describe the conditions under which intercept differences can exist under factorial invariance. In such cases, intercept differences do not result from measurement bias in either the tests or the criterion. The conditions of the theorems are testable, and the test procedures are illustrated. (SLD)
Descriptors: Factor Analysis, Factor Structure, Groups, Regression (Statistics)
Peer reviewedTurner, Nigel E. – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998
This study assessed the accuracy of parallel analysis, a technique in which observed eigenvalues are compared to eigenvalues from simulated data when no real factors are present. Three studies with manipulated sizes of real factors and sample sizes illustrate the importance of modeling the data more closely when parallel analysis is used. (SLD)
Descriptors: Comparative Analysis, Factor Analysis, Factor Structure, Sample Size
Peer reviewedMarsh, Herbert W.; Hau, Kit-Tai; Balla, John R.; Grayson, David – Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1998
Whether "more is ever too much" for the number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis was studied by varying sample size and indicators per factor in 35,000 Monte Carlo solutions. Results suggest that traditional rules calling for fewer indicators for smaller sample size may be inappropriate. (SLD)
Descriptors: Factor Structure, Monte Carlo Methods, Research Methodology, Sample Size
Peer reviewedBlaha, John; Merydith, Scott P.; Wallbrown, Fred H.; Dowd, Thomas E. – Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 2001
A hierarchical factor solution on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 standardization sample found a general psychopathology factor and four primary factors similar to those reported by Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, and Kaemmer (1989). (Contains 29 references and 2 tables.) (Author)
Descriptors: Factor Analysis, Factor Structure, Personality Measures, Psychopathology
Peer reviewedBandalos, Deborah L. – Structural Equation Modeling, 2002
Used simulation to study the effects of the practice of item parceling. Results indicate that certain types of item parceling can obfuscate a multidimensional factor structure in a way that acceptable values of fit indexes are found for a misspecified solution. Discusses why the use of parceling cannot be recommended when items are…
Descriptors: Estimation (Mathematics), Factor Structure, Goodness of Fit, Test Items
Peer reviewedHayduk, Leslie A.; Glaser, Dale N. – Structural Equation Modeling, 2000
Focuses on the four-step method (four nested models) of structural equation modeling advocated by S. Mulaik (1997, 1998), discussing the limitations of the approach and considering the tests and criteria to be used in moving among the four steps. (SLD)
Descriptors: Factor Analysis, Factor Structure, Research Methodology, Structural Equation Models
Peer reviewedMulaik, Stanley A.; Millsap, Roger E. – Structural Equation Modeling, 2000
Defends the four-step approach to structural equation modeling based on testing sequences of models and points out misunderstandings of opponents of the approach. The four-step approach allows the separation of respective constraints within a structural equation model. (SLD)
Descriptors: Factor Analysis, Factor Structure, Research Methodology, Structural Equation Models
Peer reviewedBollen, Kenneth A. – Structural Equation Modeling, 2000
Neither the four-step model nor the one-step procedure can actually tell whether the researcher has the right number of factors in structural equation modeling. In fact, for reasons discussed, a simple formulaic approach to the correct specification of models does not yet exist. (SLD)
Descriptors: Factor Analysis, Factor Structure, Research Methodology, Structural Equation Models
Peer reviewedHayduk, Leslie A.; Glaser, Dale N. – Structural Equation Modeling, 2000
Replies to commentaries on the four-step approach to structural equation modeling, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each argument and ultimately concluding that the four-step model is subject to criticisms that can be addressed to factor analysis as well. (SLD)
Descriptors: Factor Analysis, Factor Structure, Research Methodology, Structural Equation Models
Peer reviewedRuggiero, Kenneth J.; Morris, Tracy L.; Beidel, Deborah C.; Scotti, Joseph R.; McLeer, Susan V. – Assessment, 1999
Examined the discriminant validity of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (C. Spielberger, 1973) and the Children's Depression Inventory (M. Kovacs, 1992) using a sample of 240 clinic-referred and non-clinic-referred children aged 8 to 14 years. Factor analysis yielded distinct factors of anxiety and depression. (SLD)
Descriptors: Adolescents, Anxiety, Children, Depression (Psychology)
Peer reviewedBoles, James S.; Dean, Dwane H.; Ricks, Joe M.; Short, Jeremy C.; Wang, Guangping – Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2000
One-factor, three-factor, and higher-order factor structures of the Maslach Burnout Inventory were tested with 183 elementary-secondary teachers and administrators and 162 small business owners. Analyses suggested the three-factor structure was most plausible. Addition of business owners extended the generalizability of the inventory. (SK)
Descriptors: Administrators, Burnout, Factor Structure, Small Businesses


