This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hall, R. J. Articles by Foust, M. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Item Parceling Strategies in SEM: Investigating the Subtle Effects of Unmodeled Secondary Constructs

Andrea F. Snell

Michelle Singer Foust

University of Akron

For theoretical and empirical reasons, researchers may combine item-level responses into aggregate item parcels to use as indicators in a structural equation modeling context. Yet the effects of specific parceling strategies on parameter estimation and model fit are not known. In Study 1, different parceling combinations meaningfully affected parameter estimates and fit indicators in two organizational data sets. Based on the concept of external consistency, the authors proposed that combining items that shared an unmodeled secondary influence into the same parcel (shared uniqueness strategy) would enhance the accuracy of parameter estimates. This proposal was supported in Study 2, using simulated data generated from a known model. When the unmodeled secondary influence was related to indicators of only one latent construct, the shared uniqueness parceling strategy resulted in more accurate parameter estimates. When indicators of both target latent constructs were contaminated, bias was present but appropriately signaled by worsened fit statistics.

Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 2, No. 3, 233-256 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/109442819923002


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. R. Konold and J. J. Glutting ADHD and Method Variance: A Latent Variable Approach Applied to a Nationally Representative Sample of College Freshmen J Learn Disabil, September 1, 2008; 41(5): 405 - 416. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Hornung and D. M. Rousseau Active on the Job Proactive in Change: How Autonomy at Work Contributes to Employee Support for Organizational Change Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, December 1, 2007; 43(4): 401 - 426. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. G. Whitaker, J. J. Dahling, and P. Levy The Development of a Feedback Environment and Role Clarity Model of Job Performance Journal of Management, August 1, 2007; 33(4): 570 - 591. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. J. Woehr, L. M. Arciniega, and D. H. Lim Examining Work Ethic Across Populations: A Comparison of the Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile Across Three Diverse Cultures Educational and Psychological Measurement, February 1, 2007; 67(1): 154 - 168. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. D. Elicker, P. E. Levy, and R. J. Hall The Role of Leader-Member Exchange in the Performance Appraisal Process Journal of Management, August 1, 2006; 32(4): 531 - 551. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. W. Meade and C. M. Kroustalis Problems With Item Parceling for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Tests of Measurement Invariance Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 2006; 9(3): 369 - 403. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Stevens and M. K. Tallent-Runnels The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory-High School Version: Issues of Factorial Invariance Across Gender and Ethnicity Educational and Psychological Measurement, April 1, 2004; 64(2): 332 - 346. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Nasser and J. Wisenbaker A Monte Carlo Study Investigating the Impact of Item Parceling on Measures of Fit in Confirmatory Factor Analysis Educational and Psychological Measurement, October 1, 2003; 63(5): 729 - 757. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Kim, G. H. Brody, and V. M. Murry Factor Structure of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire and Measurement Invariance Across Gender The Journal of Early Adolescence, August 1, 2003; 23(3): 268 - 294. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. M. Rogers, N. Schmitt, and M. E. Mullins Correction for Unreliability of Multifactor Measures: Comparison of Alpha and Parallel Forms Approaches Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2002; 5(2): 184 - 199. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Kerr and R. Beaujot Family Relations, Low Income, and Child Outcomes: A Comparison of Canadian Children in Intact-, Step-, and Lone-Parent Families International Journal of Comparative Sociology, April 1, 2002; 43(2): 134 - 152. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Moradi and L. M. Subich Feminist Identity Development Measures: Comparing the Psychometrics of Three Instruments The Counseling Psychologist, January 1, 2002; 30(1): 66 - 86. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. W. Cheung and R. B. Rensvold The Effects of Model Parsimony and Sampling Error on the Fit of Structural Equation Models Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 2001; 4(3): 236 - 264. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. S. Landis, D. J. Beal, and P. E. Tesluk A Comparison of Approaches to Forming Composite Measures in Structural Equation Models Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2000; 3(2): 186 - 207. [Abstract] [PDF]