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

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

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, Vol. 21, No. 4, 02.10.2014, p. 509-523.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

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 -

Recently viewed

Researchers

  1. Andreas Zedler

Activities

  1. MindSphere OpenSpace Eröffnung
  2. Gutachter (external rewiever; final evaluation report) der European Science
 Foundation COST Action 287 "Gesture Controlled Audio Interfaces"
  3. How can corporate social responsibility (CSR) gain relevance in internal communication? A network perspective on communication processes
  4. Fostering Oral Skills Through the Use of Participatory Web 2.0 Technologies in the Project-based EFL Classroom
  5. Challenges and Possibilities of Digitization During the Pandemic: The Cuban Case and Questions of Access
  6. Governing Communities through Music?: Governmentality Insights and Illustrations from Baltimore
  7. Policy learning and evidence-based governance in mandated participatory planning
  8. Mercator School of Management
  9. Frontiers and borders of superdiversity
  10. When Algorithms are your Boss: Staying Human in Platform-Mediated Work
  11. Representation as “experiencing for”? Exposure as a political argument
  12. Seminar "Media Architecture" - 2006
  13. Future as a Result of Evolution and Planning
  14. WSEAS Transactions on Computer Research (Fachzeitschrift)
  15. Making Sense(s) - 2019
  16. Robust Current Decoupling in a Permanent Magnet Motor Combining a Geometric Method and SMC
  17. ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2009
  18. Platform Bureaucracy
  19. Lena Meyer-Bergner’s Commitment to Social Change through the Material Transformation of Everyday Life
  20. Transdisziplinäre Forschung: Diversität und Differenz
  21. Tagung "Transformation als Dauerphänomen" des SFB 580 - 2006
  22. Tagung 2019 "WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM – WHOM?"
  23. Unmerkliche Materie: Multisensorische Simulationen zum Begreifen der Molekülmechanik
  24. Politics of volition or constraint?
  25. Workshop: "Transfer of Tourism Knowledge and Tourism Results – Publishing Issues of the Future" - 2006
  26. Generalizability vs. specificity – how much idiosyncrasy do schools need in school inspection?
  27. Berechnetes Kino
  28. Mythos zwischen Sprache und Schrift
  29. Legitimizing museums as an agent of social change?
  30. NewMac Symposium - 2013