thesis using factor analysis pdf

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling

Cite this chapter.

• Aek Phakiti 5  

7816 Accesses

11 Citations

This chapter explains the core principles of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) that can be used in applied linguistics research. CFA and SEM are multivariate statistical techniques researchers use to test a hypothesis or theory. This chapter provides essential guidelines for not only how to read CFA and SEM reports but also how to perform CFA. CFA differs from exploratory factor analysis in many ways (e.g., statistical assumptions and procedures, assessment of model fit and methods for extracting factors). Researchers employ SEM to evaluate or test among observed variables and latent variables. In this chapter, EQS Program is used to illustrate how to perform CFA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52 (3), 317–332.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bentler, P. M. (1985–2018). EQS Version 6 for Windows [Computer software] . Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

Google Scholar  

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238–246.

Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS structural equation program manual . Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3), 588–606.

Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2006). EQS for Windows user’s guide . Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Carter, T. M. (1971). Robustness in regression analysis. In H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 118–146). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criteria (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52 (3), 345–370.

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York and London: Guilford Press.

Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming . New York and London: Psychology Press.

Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18 (1), 115–126.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 155–159.

Grant, R., MacDonald, R., Phakiti, A., & Cook, H. (2014). The importance of writing in mathematics: Quantitative analysis of U.S. English learners’ academic language proficiency and mathematics achievement. In E. Stracke (Ed.), Intersections: Applied linguistics as a meeting place (pp. 208–232). Newcastle upon Tyne). London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Hancock, G. R., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Structural equation modelling: Possibilities for language learning researchers. Language Learning, 65 (S1), 160–184.

In’nami, Y., & Koizumi, R. (2010). Can structural equation models in second language testing and learning research be successfully replicated? International Journal of Testing, 10 , 262–273.

Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 57 , 239–257.

Kaplan, D. (1995). Statistical power in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 100–117). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York and London: The Guilford Press.

Ockey, G. J. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The Companion to language assessment (pp. 1224–1444). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

Ockey, G. J., & Choi, I. (2015). Structural equation modeling reporting practices for language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 12 (3), 305–319.

Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1992). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach . Hillsdale, NJ: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Phakiti, A. (2008). Strategic competence as a fourth-order factor model: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5 (1), 20–42.

Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 (4), 655–687.

Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912.

Rubenfeld, S., & Clément, R. (2012). Intercultural conflict and mediation: An intergroup perspective. Language Learning, 62 (4), 1205–1230.

Schoonen, R. (2015). Structural equation modelling in L2 research. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 213–242). New York: Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York and London: Routledge.

Thompson, B. (2000). Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 261–283). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Ullman, J. B. (1996). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed., pp. 709–811). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. (2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65 (2), 390–416.

Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counselling Psychologist, 34 (5), 719–751.

Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8 , 84–136.

Winke, P. (2014). Testing hypotheses about language learning using structural equation modeling. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34 , 102–122.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Aek Phakiti

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aek Phakiti .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Sydney School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Department of Linguistics, Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Peter De Costa

Applied Linguistics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

Luke Plonsky

School of Education, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Sue Starfield

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Phakiti, A. (2018). Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. In: Phakiti, A., De Costa, P., Plonsky, L., Starfield, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_21

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_21

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-59899-8

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-59900-1

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Published Research Common Errors and Some Comment on Improved Practice

2006, Educational and Psychological …

Related Papers

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a complex, multi-step process. The goal of this paper is to collect, in one article, information that will allow researchers and practitioners to understand the various choices available through popular software packages, and to make decisions about " best practices " in exploratory factor analysis. In particular, this paper provides practical information on making decisions regarding (a) extraction, (b) rotation, (c) the number of factors to interpret, and (d) sample size. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a widely utilized and broadly applied statistical technique in the social sciences. In recently published studies, EFA was used for a variety of applications, including developing an instrument for the evaluation of school principals (Lovett, Zeiss, & Heinemann, 2002), assessing the motivation of Puerto Rican high school students (Morris, 2001), and determining what types of services should be offered to college students (Majors & Sedlacek, 2001). A survey of a recent two-year period in PsycINFO yielded over 1700 studies that used some form of EFA. Well over half listed principal components analysis with varimax rotation as the method used for data analysis, and of those researchers who report their criteria for deciding the number of factors to be retained for rotation, a majority use the Kaiser criterion (all factors with eigenvalues greater than one). While this represents the norm in the literature (and often the defaults in popular statistical software packages), it will not always yield the best results for a particular data set. EFA is a complex procedure with few absolute guidelines and many options. In some cases, options vary in terminology across software packages, and in many cases particular options are not well defined. Furthermore, study design, data properties, and the questions to be answered all have a bearing on which procedures will yield the maximum benefit. The goal of this paper is to discuss common practice in studies using exploratory factor analysis, and provide practical information on best practices in the use of EFA. In particular we discuss four issues: 1) component vs. factor extraction, 2) number of factors to retain for rotation, 3) orthogonal vs. oblique rotation, and 4) adequate sample size. BEST PRACTICE Extraction: Principal Components vs. Factor Analysis PCA (principal components analysis) is the default method of extraction in many popular statistical software packages, including SPSS and SAS, which likely contributes to its popularity. However, PCA is

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction

Matt C Howard

Authors within the fields of cyberpsychology and human−computer interaction have demonstrated a particular interest in measurement and scale creation, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is an extremely important statistical method for these areas of research. Unfortunately, EFA requires several statistical and methodological decisions to which the best choices are often unclear. The current article reviews five primary decisions and provides direct suggestions for best practices.These decisions are (a) the data inspection techniques, (b) the factor analytic method, (c) the factor retention method, (d) the factor rotation method, and (e) the factor loading cutoff. Then the article reviews authors’ choices for these five EFA decisions in every relevant article within seven cyberpsychology and/or human–computer interaction journals. The results demonstrate that authors do not employ the recommended best practices for most decisions. Particularly, most authors do not inspect their data for violations of assumptions, apply inappropriate factor analytic methods, utilize outdated factor retention methods, and omit the justification for their factor rotation methods. Further,many authors omit altogether their EFA decisions. To rectify these concerns, the current article provides a step-by-step guide and checklist that authors can reference to ensure the use of recommended best practices. Together, the current article identifies concerns with current research and provides direct solutions to these concerns.

Thanh Hiền Đào

Ahsan Mahmood

The Problem. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) serves many useful purposes in human resource development (HRD) research. The most frequent applications of EFA among researchers consists of reducing relatively large sets of variables into more manageable ones, developing and refining a new instrument's scales, and exploring relations among variables to build theory. Because researchers face a number of decisions when conducting EFA that can involve some subjectivity (e.g., factor extraction method, rotation), poor analytic decisions regarding how the EFA should be conducted (e.g., number of factors to extract) can produce misleading findings to the detriment of these efforts, especially theory building. The Solution. Steps must be taken to improve the quality of the decision making associated with conducting EFAs if sound theory building and research related to this statistical method is to continue. Higher quality EFAs facilitate higher quality theory building and research. The Stakeholders. HRD theorists, researchers, and scholar-practitioners are the intended audience of this article. In particular, those interested in refining measures and theory building would benefit most from being exposed to best EFA decision-making practices.

Marketing Letters

Robert Peterson

Doç. Dr. Ahmet Maşlakcı

Explanatory factor analysis (EFA) is a multivariate statistical method frequently used in quantitative research and has begun to be used in many fields such as social sciences, health sciences and economics. With EFA, researchers focus on fewer items that explain the structure, instead of considering too many items that may be unimportant and carry out their studies by placing these items into meaningful categories (factors). However, for over sixty years, many researchers have made different recommendations about when and how to use EFA. Differences in these recommendations confuse the use of EFA. The main topics of discussion are sample size, number of items, item extraction methods, factor retention criteria, rotation methods and general applicability of the applied procedures. The abundance of these discussions and opinions in the literature makes it difficult for researchers to decide which procedures to follow in EFA. For this reason, it would be beneficial for researchers to ...

Behavior Research Methods

Pere Joan Ferrando

Gregory Boyle

Given the frequent use of SPSSX and SPSS/PC+ exploratory factor analysis in analyzing multivariate psychometric data, it is germane to examine the limitations of the Factor program as it currently exists. Over recent years, the routines in these packages generally have been developed and expanded considerably. In particular, the exploratory factor analysis procedures have been greatly extended and enhanced with inclusion of additional estimation methods such as minimum likelihood, unweighted least squares, generalized least squares, and so on. Likewise, availability of a Scree plot of the latent roots against factor number has facilitated determination of the appropriate factor-extraction number. Provision of a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, as well as options for sorting and retaining factor loadings greater than a minimum level (usually ± .30), have added to the utility of the SPSSX and SPSS/PC+ statistical routines. These routines have undoubtedly facilitated and stimulated psychometric reports involving the use of factor analysis in the psychological literature.

Amy Hurley , Terri Scandura , Anson Seers

International Journal of Educational Narratives

Baso Sappaile

Background. Exploratory factor analysis can be used as a guideline for constructing instrument homogeneity. Purpose. Factor analysis is the queen of analytical methods because of its strength, flexibility and closeness to the nature of scientific aims and objectives. Method. Roughly speaking, an instrument whose items measure only one trait in general and can determine the indicators of a research variable. To determine the number of indicators based on eigenvalues greater than or equal to one, both in the initial factor analysis and in further analysis. Results. A statement item is declared eligible for inclusion in a factor if the item has a factor load greater than or equal to 0.30 on only one factor. Similarly, an indicator is declared feasible if its factor load is greater than or equal to 0.30. Conclusion. The item that has the highest factor load on a factor contributes the most to that factor, so that item is used as the basis for guidance in naming a factor as the name of t...