Abstract

Monte Carlo computer simulations were used to investigate the performance of three X 2 test statistics in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Normal theory maximum likelihood )~2 (ML), Browne's asymptotic distribution free X 2 (ADF), and the Satorra-Bentler rescaled X 2 (SB) were examined under varying conditions of sample size, model specification, and multivariate distribution. For properly specified models, ML and SB showed no evidence of bias under normal distributions across all sample sizes, whereas ADF was biased at all but the largest sample sizes. ML was increasingly overestimated with increasing nonnormality, but both SB (at all sample sizes) and ADF (only at large sample sizes) showed no evidence of bias. For misspecified models, ML was again inflated with increasing nonnormality, but both SB and ADF were underestimated with increasing nonnormality. It appears that the power of the SB and ADF test statistics to detect a model misspecification is attenuated given nonnormally distributed data.

Keywords

StatisticsConfirmatory factor analysisRobustness (evolution)EconometricsRobust statisticsStatistical hypothesis testingMathematicsPsychologyStructural equation modelingEstimator

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Introduction to Econometrics

Foreword. Preface to the Second Edition. Preface to the Third Edition. Obituary. INTRODUCTION AND THE LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL. What is Econometrics? Statistical Background and M...

2020 WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks 3511 citations

Publication Info

Year
1996
Type
article
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
16-29
Citations
4872
Access
Closed

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

4872
OpenAlex
430
Influential
3634
CrossRef

Cite This

Patrick J. Curran, Stephen G. West, John F. Finch (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis.. Psychological Methods , 1 (1) , 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.16

Identifiers

DOI
10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.16

Data Quality

Data completeness: 77%