Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38480677›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

Best practices for your confirmatory factor analysis: A JASP and lavaan tutorial.

Pablo Rogers

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
24.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pablo RogersFederal University of Uberlândia, João Naves de Ávila 2121, 38.408-100, Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil. pablorogers@ufu.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0093-3834
Universidade Federal de Uberlândia · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a fundamental method for evaluating the internal structural validity of measurement instruments. In most CFA applications, the measurement model serves as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. To select the appropriate model, prior validity evidence is crucial, and items are typically assessed on an ordinal scale, which has been used in the applied social sciences. However, textbooks on structural equation modeling (SEM) often overlook this specific case, focusing on applications estimable using maximum likelihood (ML) instead. Unfortunately, several popular commercial SEM software packages lack suitable solutions for handling this 'typical CFA', leading to confusion and suboptimal decision-making when conducting CFA in this context. This article conceptually contributes to this ongoing discussion by presenting a set of guidelines for conducting a typical CFA, drawing from recent empirical research. We provide a practical contribution by introducing and developing a tutorial example within the JASP and lavaan software platforms. Supplementary materials such as videos, files, and scripts are freely available.

Indexed as

SoftwareFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansLatent Class AnalysisLikelihood FunctionsModels, StatisticalConfirmatory factor analysisInternal structure validityJASPLavaanStructural equation modeling

Identifiers

PMID38480677
OpenAlexW4392763910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.