Devlieger Ines, Mayer Axel, Rosseel Yves
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Educ Psychol Meas. 2016 Oct;76(5):741-770. doi: 10.1177/0013164415607618. Epub 2015 Sep 29.
In this article, an overview is given of four methods to perform factor score regression (FSR), namely regression FSR, Bartlett FSR, the bias avoiding method of Skrondal and Laake, and the bias correcting method of Croon. The bias correcting method is extended to include a reliable standard error. The four methods are compared with each other and with structural equation modeling (SEM) by using analytic calculations and two Monte Carlo simulation studies to examine their finite sample characteristics. Several performance criteria are used, such as the bias using the unstandardized and standardized parameterization, efficiency, mean square error, standard error bias, type I error rate, and power. The results show that the bias correcting method, with the newly developed standard error, is the only suitable alternative for SEM. While it has a higher standard error bias than SEM, it has a comparable bias, efficiency, mean square error, power, and type I error rate.
本文概述了四种进行因子得分回归(FSR)的方法,即回归FSR、巴特利特FSR、斯克隆达尔和拉克的偏差避免方法以及克龙的偏差校正方法。偏差校正方法得到了扩展,以纳入可靠的标准误差。通过解析计算和两项蒙特卡罗模拟研究,将这四种方法相互比较,并与结构方程建模(SEM)进行比较,以检验它们的有限样本特征。使用了几个性能标准,如使用非标准化和标准化参数化的偏差、效率、均方误差、标准误差偏差、I型错误率和功效。结果表明,具有新开发的标准误差的偏差校正方法是SEM唯一合适的替代方法。虽然它的标准误差偏差比SEM高,但它在偏差、效率、均方误差、功效和I型错误率方面具有可比性。