Lab Assignment 9: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using Amos Go

Lab Assignment 9 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using Amosgoal Of Exerc

Lab Assignment #9 Confirmatory Factor Analysis using AMOS Goal of Exercise: The goal of this exercise is to introduce how to operationalize the CFA using AMOS. The exercise allows students to learn how to check if the measurement model has acceptable levels of goodness-of-fit and evidence of construct validity. Please review the worksheet for more information & provide necessary AMOS output (Screen shot) to support your answers.

Paper For Above instruction

Lab Assignment 9 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using Amosgoal Of Exerc

Lab Assignment 9 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using Amosgoal Of Exerc

Introduction

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is a statistical technique used to verify the factor structure of a set of observed variables. It allows researchers to test whether a hypothesized measurement model fits the observed data adequately. Utilizing AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structures), a popular software for structural equation modeling, facilitates the operationalization of CFA by providing user-friendly interfaces and comprehensive output reports. This paper aims to demonstrate the process of conducting CFA using AMOS, evaluating the goodness-of-fit indices, and assessing construct validity through detailed analysis of the output results.

Operationalizing CFA in AMOS

The first step involves specifying the measurement model based on theoretical or empirical grounds. Researchers define latent variables (factors) and link them to observed indicators (items). Once the model is specified in AMOS, the next step is to run the analysis. The software computes various fit indices, factor loadings, and modification indices, which help determine the adequacy of the model.

Assessing Model Fit

Model fit indices are crucial in evaluating whether the hypothesized model represents the data well. Commonly examined fit indices include the Chi-Square Test (χ2), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR). Acceptable thresholds are generally indicated as χ2/df 0.90 or 0.95, RMSEA

Evidence of Construct Validity

Construct validity in CFA is assessed through factor loadings, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR). Factor loadings should ideally exceed 0.50, indicating that the observed variables adequately represent the latent construct. AVE measures the amount of variance captured by the construct in relation to measurement error; values above 0.50 are desirable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). CR evaluates the internal consistency of indicators for a construct, with values above 0.70 indicating sufficient reliability.

Reviewing AMOS Output

The AMOS output provides various tables and diagrams that illustrate the measurement model’s fit and parameter estimates. Key components include the standardized solution chart, the fit indices summary, and modification indices. A screenshot of the output should be included to substantiate the interpretation of the model fit and validity evidence.

Conclusion

Using AMOS for CFA enables researchers to confirm measurement models and ensure that they possess acceptable goodness-of-fit and construct validity. Accurate interpretation of the software output is essential for validating the measurement instruments and underpinning subsequent structural analyses. Practicing with AMOS outputs and understanding their implications enhances the rigor of quantitative research within social sciences and related fields.

References

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge.
  • Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Publications.
  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson.
  • Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 474-481.
  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Publications.
  • Schreiber, J. B., et al. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338.
  • Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis: Strategies for small sample sizes and small effect sizes. In O. Bechger & R. A. Maydeu (Eds.), Structural Equation Modeling.
  • Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.

Related Assignments