2014-Aug-01, 23:32:03

(2014-Aug-01, 17:20:07)Dalliard Wrote:(2014-Jul-30, 21:07:43)menghu1001 Wrote: Concerning congruence coefficient, after reading this article...

Davenport, E. C. (1990). Significance testing of congruence coefficients: A good idea?. Educational and psychological measurement, 50(2), 289-296.

... I am left with the impression it's very bad method. You should be careful with that. (The version of the paper I have can't allow copy paste, but check the pages 293-295.) The congruence coeff seems to constantly give you very high value even in situations where they should be (theoretically) small, or not high at all.

Can you upload that paper or send it to me? There are other sources that are more sanguine about the CC, e.g., https://media.psy.utexas.edu/sandbox/gro...ruence.pdf In any case, the problems with using Pearson's r in the analysis of factor loadings are even greater.

I can't access your link, it says :

Quote:gateway incorrect

error 502

Anway, I attach the documents you asked. The Davenport study, I have heard of it in this paper :

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDoc...ts2004.pdf

Quote:Table 13 provides the fit indices of the various factor models. The baseline model (Model 1: configural invariance) fits sufficiently, as judged by the CFI, although RMSEA is somewhat on the high side. Moreover, it is apparent that the metric invariance model (Model 2) fits worse than the configural invariance model does. All fit measures, except the CAIC, show deteriorating fit. Therefore, factor loadings cannot be considered cohort invariant (i.e., Λ1≠Λ2). Note that this is in stark contrast with the high congruence coefficient of the first principal component found by Must et al. (2003). This is due to the different natures of principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis. PCA is an exploratory analysis that does not involve explicit hypothesis testing, as is the case with MGCFA. In addition, the congruence coefficient has been criticized for sometimes giving unjustifiably high values (Davenport, 1990).

Thus, if you wish, you can recommend the use of MGCFA testing of MI at the factor loading level. It's the best alternative of CC I am aware of.

**Attached Files**

Significance Testing of Congruence Coefficients - A Good Idea (Davenport 1990).pdf (Size: 696.64 KB / Downloads: 608)

A Monte Carlo Study of the Sampling Distribution of the Congruence Coefficient (Broadbooks, Elmore, 1987).pdf (Size: 951.04 KB / Downloads: 600)