关于Lavaan的多水平因子得分估计的警告说明

Psych Pub Date : 2023-01-09 DOI:10.3390/psych5010004
Steffen Zitzmann
{"title":"关于Lavaan的多水平因子得分估计的警告说明","authors":"Steffen Zitzmann","doi":"10.3390/psych5010004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To compute factor score estimates, lavaan version 0.6–12 offers the function lavPredict( ) that can not only be applied in single-level modeling but also in multilevel modeling, where characteristics of higher-level units such as working environments or team leaders are often assessed by ratings of employees. Surprisingly, the function provides results that deviate from the expected ones. Specifically, whereas the function yields correct EAP estimates of higher-level factors, the ML estimates are counterintuitive and possibly incorrect. Moreover, the function does not provide the expected standard errors. I illustrate these issues using an example from organizational research where team leaders are evaluated by their employees, and I discuss these issues from a measurement perspective.","PeriodicalId":93139,"journal":{"name":"Psych","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Cautionary Note Regarding Multilevel Factor Score Estimates from Lavaan\",\"authors\":\"Steffen Zitzmann\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/psych5010004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To compute factor score estimates, lavaan version 0.6–12 offers the function lavPredict( ) that can not only be applied in single-level modeling but also in multilevel modeling, where characteristics of higher-level units such as working environments or team leaders are often assessed by ratings of employees. Surprisingly, the function provides results that deviate from the expected ones. Specifically, whereas the function yields correct EAP estimates of higher-level factors, the ML estimates are counterintuitive and possibly incorrect. Moreover, the function does not provide the expected standard errors. I illustrate these issues using an example from organizational research where team leaders are evaluated by their employees, and I discuss these issues from a measurement perspective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psych\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psych\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/psych5010004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psych","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/psych5010004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

为了计算因子得分估计,lavan版本0.6–12提供了lavPredict()函数,该函数不仅可以应用于单级建模,还可以应用于多级建模,在多级建模中,工作环境或团队领导等上级单位的特征通常通过员工评级来评估。令人惊讶的是,该函数提供的结果与预期的结果不同。具体地说,尽管函数产生了更高层次因素的正确EAP估计,但ML估计是违反直觉的,并且可能是不正确的。此外,该函数没有提供预期的标准误差。我用组织研究中的一个例子来说明这些问题,在这个例子中,团队领导者由他们的员工进行评估,我从衡量的角度来讨论这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Cautionary Note Regarding Multilevel Factor Score Estimates from Lavaan
To compute factor score estimates, lavaan version 0.6–12 offers the function lavPredict( ) that can not only be applied in single-level modeling but also in multilevel modeling, where characteristics of higher-level units such as working environments or team leaders are often assessed by ratings of employees. Surprisingly, the function provides results that deviate from the expected ones. Specifically, whereas the function yields correct EAP estimates of higher-level factors, the ML estimates are counterintuitive and possibly incorrect. Moreover, the function does not provide the expected standard errors. I illustrate these issues using an example from organizational research where team leaders are evaluated by their employees, and I discuss these issues from a measurement perspective.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Robust Indicator Mean-Based Method for Estimating Generalizability Theory Absolute Error and Related Dependability Indices within Structural Equation Modeling Frameworks Qualitative Pilot Interventions for the Enhancement of Mental Health Support in Doctoral Students Walking Forward Together—The Next Step: Indigenous Youth Mental Health and the Climate Crisis Walking Forward Together—The Next Step: Indigenous Youth Mental Health and the Climate Crisis The IADC Grief Questionnaire as a Brief Measure for Complicated Grief in Clinical Practice and Research: A Preliminary Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1