A Comparison of Method Effects in Two Confirmatory Factor Models for Structurally Different Methods

Autor/inn/en	Geiser, Christian; Eid, Michael; West, Stephen G.; Lischetzke, Tanja; Nussbeck, Fridtjof W.
Titel	A Comparison of Method Effects in Two Confirmatory Factor Models for Structurally Different Methods
Quelle	In: Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19 (2012) 3, S.409-436 (28 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1070-5511
DOI	10.1080/10705511.2012.687658
Schlagwörter	Structural Equation Models; Factor Analysis; Multitrait Multimethod Techniques; Comparative Analysis; Statistical Bias; Goodness of Fit; Psychological Patterns; Foreign Countries; Germany + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Faktorenanalyse; Ausland; Deutschland
Abstract	Multimethod data analysis is a complex procedure that is often used to examine the degree to which different measures of the same construct converge in the assessment of this construct. Several authors have called for a greater understanding of the definition and meaning of method effects in different models for multimethod data. In this article, we compare 2 recently proposed approaches for modeling data with structurally different methods with regard to the definition and meaning of method effects, the restricted CT-C(M - 1) model (Geiser, Eid, & Nussbeck, 2008) and the latent difference model (Lischetzke, Eid, & Nussbeck, 2002). We also introduce the concepts of individual, conditional, and general method bias and show how these types of biases are represented in the models. An application to a multirater data set (N = 199) as well as recommendations for the application and interpretation of each model are provided. (Contains 5 tables, 4 figures and 4 footnotes.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Psychology Press. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10