Markos Angelos, Tsigilis Nikolaos
Department of Primary Education, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Department of Journalism and Mass Media, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Front Psychol. 2024 May 6;15:1359111. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1359111. eCollection 2024.
In the social sciences, accurately identifying the dimensionality of measurement scales is crucial for understanding latent constructs such as anxiety, happiness, and self-efficacy. This study presents a rigorous comparison between Parallel Analysis (PA) and Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA) for assessing the dimensionality of scales, particularly focusing on ordinal data. Through an extensive simulation study, we evaluated the effectiveness of these methods under various conditions, including varying sample size, number of factors and their association, patterns of loading magnitudes, and symmetrical or skewed item distributions with assumed underlying normality or non-normality. Results show that the performance of each method varies across different scenarios, depending on the context. EGA consistently outperforms PA in correctly identifying the number of factors, particularly in complex scenarios characterized by more than a single factor, high inter-factor correlations and low to medium primary loadings. However, for datasets with simpler and stronger factor structures, specifically those with a single factor, high primary loadings, low cross-loadings, and low to moderate interfactor correlations, PA is suggested as the method of choice. Skewed item distributions with assumed underlying normality or non-normality were found to noticeably impact the performance of both methods, particularly in complex scenarios. The results provide valuable insights for researchers utilizing these methods in scale development and validation, ensuring that measurement instruments accurately reflect theoretical constructs.
在社会科学中,准确识别测量量表的维度对于理解诸如焦虑、幸福和自我效能等潜在结构至关重要。本研究对平行分析(PA)和探索性图分析(EGA)进行了严格比较,以评估量表的维度,尤其侧重于有序数据。通过广泛的模拟研究,我们评估了这些方法在各种条件下的有效性,包括不同的样本量、因素数量及其相关性、载荷大小模式,以及具有假定的潜在正态性或非正态性的对称或偏态项目分布。结果表明,每种方法的性能在不同场景下会有所不同,这取决于具体情况。在正确识别因素数量方面,EGA始终优于PA,尤其是在具有多个因素、高因素间相关性和低至中等主要载荷的复杂场景中。然而,对于具有更简单、更强因素结构的数据集,特别是那些具有单一因素、高主要载荷、低交叉载荷和低至中等因素间相关性的数据集,建议选择PA作为方法。发现具有假定的潜在正态性或非正态性的偏态项目分布会显著影响这两种方法的性能,尤其是在复杂场景中。这些结果为研究人员在量表开发和验证中使用这些方法提供了有价值的见解,确保测量工具能够准确反映理论结构。