A simulation study was conducted to examine the effect of item parceling on goodness-of-fit indices at different levels of sample size, number of indicators per factor, factor structure/pattern coefficients, interfactor correlations, and item-level data distribution. Results revealed that the use of item parcels yielded more nonconverged solutions and Heywood cases than individual items. The likelihood of nonconverged solutions and Heywood cases increased as the number of indicators per factor (more items per parcel) decreased. Meanwhile, parcel solutions as compared with item solutions resulted in better fit as measured by the chi-square to degrees-of-freedom ratio, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), as well as two incremental fit indices, the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). The same pattern of results was found with data that varied in terms of skewness and kurtosis at the item level. However, the likelihood of nonconverged solutions and Heywood cases was more pronounced when data were extremely skewed/kurtotic at the item level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155-173.
2.
Bandalos, D. (1999, April). The effects of item parceling in structural equation modeling: A Monte Carlo study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
3.
Bandalos, D., & Finney, J. S. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In A. G. Marcoulides & E. R. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269-295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
5.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606
6.
Bernstein, H., & Teng, G. (1989). Factoring items and factoring scales are different: Spurious evidence for multidimensionality due to item categorization. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 467-477.
7.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
8.
Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256-259.
9.
Boomsma, A. (1985). Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in LISREL maximum likelihood estimation. Psychometrika, 50, 229-242.
10.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455.
11.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
Cattell, R. B., & Burdsal, C. A. (1975). The radial parcel double factoring design: A solution to item-vs.-parcel controversy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 165-179.
13.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Enders, K. C., & Bandalos, L. D. (1999). The effects of heterogeneous item distribution on reliability. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 133-150.
15.
Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). The effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on SEM fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56-83.
16.
Fleishman, A. (1978). A method for simulation non-normal distributions. Psychometrika, 43, 521-532.
17.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1987). Improper solutions in analysis of covariance structures: Their interpretability, and a comparison of alternate respecifications. Psychometrika, 52, 99-111.
18.
Gribbons, B. C., & Hocevar, D. (1998). Levels of aggregation in higher level confirmatory factor analysis: Application for academic self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 377-390.
19.
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233-256.
20.
Hattie, A. J. (1986). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139-164.
21.
Hayduk, L. (1996). LISREL issues, debates, and strategies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluation of model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-31.
25.
Joormann, J., & Stöber, J. (1997). Measuring facets of worry: A LISREL analysis of the Worry Domains questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 827-837.
26.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7—A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS.
27.
Kaiser, H. F., & Dickman, K. (1962). Sample and population score matrices and sample correlation matrices from arbitrary population correlation matrix. Psychometrika, 27, 179-182.
28.
Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757-765.
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364-390.
31.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181-220.
32.
Nasser, F., Takahashi, T., & Benson, J. (1997). The structure of test anxiety in Israeli-Arab high school students: An application of confirmatory factor analysis with miniscales. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 10, 129-151.
33.
Prats, D. C. (1990, April). The effects of forming miniscales on the construct validity of the test anxiety inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement of Education, Boston.
34.
Tanaka, S. J. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & S. J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 10-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
Thompson, B. (2000). Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. In L. Grimm & P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 261-284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
36.
Thompson, B., & Melancon, J. (1996, November). Using item “testlets/parcels” in confirmatory factor analysis: An example using the PPDP-78. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, AL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 349)
37.
Velicer, W. F., & Fava, L. L. (1987). An evaluation of the effects of variable sampling on component, image, and factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 193-209.
38.
Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 1-25.
39.
Wainer, H., & Kiely, G. L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 185-201.
40.
West, S. G., Finch, J. E., & 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, CA: Sage.
41.
Yuan, K.-H., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1997). On averaging variables in a CFA model. Behaviormetrika, 24, 71-83.
