Data-Generating Mechanisms Versus Constructively Defined Latent Variables in Multitrait–Multimethod Analysis: A Comment on Castro-Schilo, Widaman, and Grimm (2013)

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Data-Generating Mechanisms Versus Constructively Defined Latent Variables in Multitrait–Multimethod Analysis: A Comment on Castro-Schilo, Widaman, and Grimm (2013). / Geiser, Christian; Koch, Tobias; Eid, Michael.
in: Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Jahrgang 21, Nr. 4, 02.10.2014, S. 509-523.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{181febb02ff6473c80180a983f7ec16c,
title = "Data-Generating Mechanisms Versus Constructively Defined Latent Variables in Multitrait–Multimethod Analysis:: A Comment on Castro-Schilo, Widaman, and Grimm (2013)",
abstract = "In a recent article, Castro-Schilo, Widaman, and Grimm (2013) compared different approaches for relating multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) data to external variables. Castro-Schilo et al. reported that estimated associations with external variables were in part biased when either the correlated traits–correlated uniqueness (CT-CU) or correlated traits–correlated (methods–1) [CT-C(M–1)] models were fit to data generated from the correlated traits–correlated methods (CT-CM) model, whereas the data-generating CT-CM model accurately reproduced these associations. Castro-Schilo et al. argued that the CT-CM model adequately represents the data-generating mechanism in MTMM studies, whereas the CT-CU and CT-C(M–1) models do not fully represent the MTMM structure. In this comment, we question whether the CT-CM model is more plausible as a data-generating model for MTMM data than the CT-C(M–1) model. We show that the CT-C(M–1) model can be formulated as a reparameterization of a basic MTMM true score model that leads to a meaningful and parsimonious representation of MTMM data. We advocate the use confirmatory factor analysis MTMM models in which latent trait, method, and error variables are explicitly and constructively defined based on psychometric theory.",
keywords = "Sociology, constructively defined latent variables, CT-CM model, CT-C(M-1) model",
author = "Christian Geiser and Tobias Koch and Michael Eid",
year = "2014",
month = oct,
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/10705511.2014.919816",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "509--523",
journal = "Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal",
issn = "1532-8007",
publisher = "Psychology Press Ltd",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Data-Generating Mechanisms Versus Constructively Defined Latent Variables in Multitrait–Multimethod Analysis:

T2 - A Comment on Castro-Schilo, Widaman, and Grimm (2013)

AU - Geiser, Christian

AU - Koch, Tobias

AU - Eid, Michael

PY - 2014/10/2

Y1 - 2014/10/2

N2 - In a recent article, Castro-Schilo, Widaman, and Grimm (2013) compared different approaches for relating multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) data to external variables. Castro-Schilo et al. reported that estimated associations with external variables were in part biased when either the correlated traits–correlated uniqueness (CT-CU) or correlated traits–correlated (methods–1) [CT-C(M–1)] models were fit to data generated from the correlated traits–correlated methods (CT-CM) model, whereas the data-generating CT-CM model accurately reproduced these associations. Castro-Schilo et al. argued that the CT-CM model adequately represents the data-generating mechanism in MTMM studies, whereas the CT-CU and CT-C(M–1) models do not fully represent the MTMM structure. In this comment, we question whether the CT-CM model is more plausible as a data-generating model for MTMM data than the CT-C(M–1) model. We show that the CT-C(M–1) model can be formulated as a reparameterization of a basic MTMM true score model that leads to a meaningful and parsimonious representation of MTMM data. We advocate the use confirmatory factor analysis MTMM models in which latent trait, method, and error variables are explicitly and constructively defined based on psychometric theory.

AB - In a recent article, Castro-Schilo, Widaman, and Grimm (2013) compared different approaches for relating multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) data to external variables. Castro-Schilo et al. reported that estimated associations with external variables were in part biased when either the correlated traits–correlated uniqueness (CT-CU) or correlated traits–correlated (methods–1) [CT-C(M–1)] models were fit to data generated from the correlated traits–correlated methods (CT-CM) model, whereas the data-generating CT-CM model accurately reproduced these associations. Castro-Schilo et al. argued that the CT-CM model adequately represents the data-generating mechanism in MTMM studies, whereas the CT-CU and CT-C(M–1) models do not fully represent the MTMM structure. In this comment, we question whether the CT-CM model is more plausible as a data-generating model for MTMM data than the CT-C(M–1) model. We show that the CT-C(M–1) model can be formulated as a reparameterization of a basic MTMM true score model that leads to a meaningful and parsimonious representation of MTMM data. We advocate the use confirmatory factor analysis MTMM models in which latent trait, method, and error variables are explicitly and constructively defined based on psychometric theory.

KW - Sociology

KW - constructively defined latent variables

KW - CT-CM model

KW - CT-C(M-1) model

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927564218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10705511.2014.919816

DO - 10.1080/10705511.2014.919816

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 25419098

VL - 21

SP - 509

EP - 523

JO - Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal

JF - Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal

SN - 1532-8007

IS - 4

ER -

DOI

Zuletzt angesehen

Publikationen

  1. Dynamically changing sequencing rules with reinforcement learning in a job shop system with stochastic influences
  2. Lyapunov stability analysis to set up a PI controller for a mass flow system in case of a non-saturating input
  3. Influence of Process Parameters and Die Design on the Microstructure and Texture Development of Direct Extruded Magnesium Flat Products
  4. Use of Machine-Learning Algorithms Based on Text, Audio and Video Data in the Prediction of Anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress in General and Clinical Populations
  5. Combining a PI Controller with an Adaptive Feedforward Control in PMSM
  6. “Ideation is Fine, but Execution is Key”
  7. A Multilevel Inverter Bridge Control Structure with Energy Storage Using Model Predictive Control for Flat Systems
  8. Sliding mode and model predictive control for inverse pendulum
  9. Model predictive control for switching gain adaptation in a sliding mode controller of a DC drive with nonlinear friction
  10. Restoring Causal Analysis to Structural Equation ModelingReview of Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd Edition), by Judea Pearl
  11. Effects of diversity versus segregation on automatic approach and avoidance behavior towards own and other ethnic groups
  12. Understanding Low-Code Evolution, Adoption and Ecosystem for Software Development
  13. An observer for sensorless variable valve control in camless internal combustion engines
  14. The Low-Code Phenomenon: Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Research
  15. Evaluating a Bayesian Student Model of Decimal Misconceptions
  16. Operational integration of EMIS and ERP systems
  17. The identification of up-And downstream industries using input-output tables and a firm-level application to minority shareholdings
  18. Concepts
  19. Moving Towards Measuring Multifunctionality in Ecosystems: FieldScreen – A Mobile Positioning System for Non-Invasive Measurement of Plant Traits in Field Experiments
  20. Document assignment in multi-site search engines
  21. German Utilities and distributed PV