Abstract
A new model of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data sets is presented. It is shown that this model can be defined by only three assumptions in the framework of classical psychometric test theory (CTT). All other properties of the model, particularly the uncorrelated-ness of the trait with the method factors are logical consequences of the definition of the model. In the model proposed there are as many trait factors as different traits considered, but the number of method factors is one fewer than the number of methods included in an MTMM study. The covariance structure implied by this model is derived, and it is shown that this model is identified even under conditions under which other CFA-MTMM models are not. The model is illustrated by two empirical applications. Furthermore, its advantages and limitations are discussed with respect to previously developed CFA models for MTMM data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Arbuckle, J.L. (1995).Amos for Windows. Analysis of moment structures (Version 3.5). Chicago, IL: Smallwaters.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1993). Assessing construct validity in personality research: Applications to measures of self-esteem.Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 49–87.
Bentler, P. (1992).EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.
Brannick, M.T., & Spector, P.E. (1990). Estimation problems in the block-diagonal model of the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 325–339.
Browne, M.W. (1984). The decomposition of multitrait-multimethod matrices.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 1–21.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Cudeck, R. (1988). Multiplicative models and MTMM matrices.Journal of Educational Statistics, 13, 131–147.
Eid, M. (1996). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis for polytomous item responses: Model definition and model selection on the basis of stochastic measurement theory.Methods of Psychological Research—Online, 1, 65–85.
Eid, M. (1997). Sonnenschutzverhalten: Ein typologischer Ansatz [Sun-protection behavior: A typological approach].Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 5, 73–90.
Eid, M., Klusemann, J., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1996). Motivation zum Sonnenschutz: Ein Experiment zu den Auswirkungen von Aufklrungsbotschaften auf die Intention zum Sonnenschutz und das Sonnenschutzverhalten [Sun-protection motivation: An experiment on the effects of messages on sun-protection intentions and behavior].Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 4, 270–289.
Eid, M., Schneider, C., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1995). Do you feel better or worse? On the validity of perceived deviations of mood states from mood traits.European Journal of Personality 13, 283–306.
Grayson, D., & Marsh, H W. (1994). Identification with deficient rank loading matrices in confirmatory factor analysis: Multitrait-multimethod models.Psychometrika, 59, 121–134.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993).LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.
Kenny, D.A. (1979).Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.
Kenny, D.A., & Kashy, D.A. (1992). The analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 112, 165–172.
Lord, F.M., & Novick, M.R. (1968).Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Marsh, H.W. (1989). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions.Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335–361.
Marsh, H.W., Byrne, B.M., & Craven, R. (1992). Overcoming problems in confirmatory factor analyses of MTMM data: The correlated uniqueness model and factorial invariance.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27, 489–507.
Marsh, H.W., & Grayson, D. (1995). Latent variable models of multitrait-multimethod data. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.),Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 177–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsh, H.W., & Hocevar, D. (1988). A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 107–117.
Millsap, R.E. (1995). The statistical analysis of method effects in multitrait-multimethod data: A review. In P.E. Shrout & S.T. Fiske (Eds.),Personality research, methods, and theory. A festschrift honoring D.W. Fiske (pp. 93–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mount, M.K. (1984). Psychometric properties of subordinate ratings of managerial performance.Personnel Psychology, 37, 687–702.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998).Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Saris, W.E., & Andrews, F.M. (1991). Evaluation of measurement instruments using a structural modeling approach. In P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Eds.),Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 575–597). New York. Wiley.
Saris, W.E., & van Meurs, A. (1991).Evaluation of measurement instruments by meta-analysis of multitrait-multimethod studies. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Schmitt, N., & Stults, D.M. (1986). Methodological review: Analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices.Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 1–22.
Shrout, P.E., & Fiske, S.T. (Eds.) (1995).Personality research, methods, and theory. A festschrift honoring D.W. Fiske (pp. 93–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steyer, R. (1988). Conditional expectations: An introduction to the concept and its applications in empirical sciences.Methodika, 2, 53–78.
Steyer, R. (1989). Models of classical psychometric test theory as stochastic measurement models: Representation, uniqueness, meaningfulness, identifiability, and testability.Methodika, 3, 25–60.
West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.),Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Widaman, K.F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data.Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26.
Wothke, W. (1996). Models for multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis. In G.A. Marcoulides & R E. Schumacker (Eds.),Advanced structural equation modeling. Issues and techniques (pp. 7–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, D.W. (1975). Probability spaces, Hilbert spaces, and the axioms of test theory.Psychometrika, 40, 395–412.
Zimmerman, D.W. (1976). Test theory with minimal assumptions.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 85–96.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eid, M. A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika 65, 241–261 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294377
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294377