Skip to main content
Log in

A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A new model of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data sets is presented. It is shown that this model can be defined by only three assumptions in the framework of classical psychometric test theory (CTT). All other properties of the model, particularly the uncorrelated-ness of the trait with the method factors are logical consequences of the definition of the model. In the model proposed there are as many trait factors as different traits considered, but the number of method factors is one fewer than the number of methods included in an MTMM study. The covariance structure implied by this model is derived, and it is shown that this model is identified even under conditions under which other CFA-MTMM models are not. The model is illustrated by two empirical applications. Furthermore, its advantages and limitations are discussed with respect to previously developed CFA models for MTMM data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arbuckle, J.L. (1995).Amos for Windows. Analysis of moment structures (Version 3.5). Chicago, IL: Smallwaters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R.P. (1993). Assessing construct validity in personality research: Applications to measures of self-esteem.Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 49–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. (1992).EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannick, M.T., & Spector, P.E. (1990). Estimation problems in the block-diagonal model of the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 325–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M.W. (1984). The decomposition of multitrait-multimethod matrices.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudeck, R. (1988). Multiplicative models and MTMM matrices.Journal of Educational Statistics, 13, 131–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M. (1996). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis for polytomous item responses: Model definition and model selection on the basis of stochastic measurement theory.Methods of Psychological Research—Online, 1, 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M. (1997). Sonnenschutzverhalten: Ein typologischer Ansatz [Sun-protection behavior: A typological approach].Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 5, 73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., Klusemann, J., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1996). Motivation zum Sonnenschutz: Ein Experiment zu den Auswirkungen von Aufklrungsbotschaften auf die Intention zum Sonnenschutz und das Sonnenschutzverhalten [Sun-protection motivation: An experiment on the effects of messages on sun-protection intentions and behavior].Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 4, 270–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., Schneider, C., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1995). Do you feel better or worse? On the validity of perceived deviations of mood states from mood traits.European Journal of Personality 13, 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, D., & Marsh, H W. (1994). Identification with deficient rank loading matrices in confirmatory factor analysis: Multitrait-multimethod models.Psychometrika, 59, 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993).LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D.A. (1979).Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D.A., & Kashy, D.A. (1992). The analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 112, 165–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F.M., & Novick, M.R. (1968).Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H.W. (1989). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions.Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H.W., Byrne, B.M., & Craven, R. (1992). Overcoming problems in confirmatory factor analyses of MTMM data: The correlated uniqueness model and factorial invariance.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27, 489–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H.W., & Grayson, D. (1995). Latent variable models of multitrait-multimethod data. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.),Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 177–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H.W., & Hocevar, D. (1988). A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, R.E. (1995). The statistical analysis of method effects in multitrait-multimethod data: A review. In P.E. Shrout & S.T. Fiske (Eds.),Personality research, methods, and theory. A festschrift honoring D.W. Fiske (pp. 93–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mount, M.K. (1984). Psychometric properties of subordinate ratings of managerial performance.Personnel Psychology, 37, 687–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998).Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W.E., & Andrews, F.M. (1991). Evaluation of measurement instruments using a structural modeling approach. In P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Eds.),Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 575–597). New York. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saris, W.E., & van Meurs, A. (1991).Evaluation of measurement instruments by meta-analysis of multitrait-multimethod studies. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N., & Stults, D.M. (1986). Methodological review: Analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices.Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P.E., & Fiske, S.T. (Eds.) (1995).Personality research, methods, and theory. A festschrift honoring D.W. Fiske (pp. 93–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyer, R. (1988). Conditional expectations: An introduction to the concept and its applications in empirical sciences.Methodika, 2, 53–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyer, R. (1989). Models of classical psychometric test theory as stochastic measurement models: Representation, uniqueness, meaningfulness, identifiability, and testability.Methodika, 3, 25–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.),Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widaman, K.F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data.Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wothke, W. (1996). Models for multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis. In G.A. Marcoulides & R E. Schumacker (Eds.),Advanced structural equation modeling. Issues and techniques (pp. 7–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, D.W. (1975). Probability spaces, Hilbert spaces, and the axioms of test theory.Psychometrika, 40, 395–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, D.W. (1976). Test theory with minimal assumptions.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Eid.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eid, M. A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika 65, 241–261 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294377

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294377

Key words

Navigation