Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-8qdnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:49:47.734Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Problem with Discretizing Vale–Maurelli in Simulation Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Steffen Grønneberg  and
Njål Foldnes Open the ORCID record for Njål Foldnes [Opens in a new window]
Steffen Grønneberg
Affiliation:
BI Norwegian Business School
Njål Foldnes*
Affiliation:
BI Norwegian Business School
*
Correspondence should be made to Njål Foldnes, Department of Economics, BI Norwegian Business School, 0484 Oslo, Norway. Email: njal.foldnes@bi.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous influential simulation studies investigate the effect of underlying non-normality in ordinal data using the Vale–Maurelli (VM) simulation method. We show that discretized data stemming from the VM method with a prescribed target covariance matrix are usually numerically equal to data stemming from discretizing a multivariate normal vector. This normal vector has, however, a different covariance matrix than the target. It follows that these simulation studies have in fact studied data stemming from normal data with a possibly misspecified covariance structure. This observation affects the interpretation of previous simulation studies.

Keywords

polychoric correlationVale–Maurellinon-normal datastructural equation modelingordinal data
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 84 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 554 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-019-09663-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Bollen, K. A., Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flora, D. B., Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data.. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foldnes, N., Grønneberg, S. (2015). How general is the Vale–Maurelli simulation approach?. Psychometrika, 80(4), 1066–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, S., Luo, H., Yang-Wallentin, F. (2016). A simulation study of polychoric instrumental variable estimation in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(5), 680–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., Moustaki, I. (2001). Factor analysis of ordinal variables: A comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(3), 347–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2006). Limited information estimation and testing of discretized multivariate normal structural models. Psychometrika, 71(1), 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maydeu-Olivares, A., García-Forero, C., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Renom, J. (2009). Testing categorized bivariate normality with two-stage polychoric correlation estimates. Methodology, 5(4), 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, S. (2018). Contributions to estimation of polychoric correlations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(2), 247–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moshagen, M., Musch, J. (2014). Sample size requirements of the robust weighted least squares estimator. Methodology, 10(2), 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49(1), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Natesan, P. (2015). Comparing interval estimates for small sample ordinal CFA models. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nestler, S. (2013). A Monte Carlo study comparing PIV, ULS and DWLS in the estimation of dichotomous confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(1), 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, U. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 44(4), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, K. (1901). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. VII. On the correlation of characters not quantitatively. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 196, 1–47.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, PÉ, Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling. In Handbook of psychology (2nd ed., Chap. 23). Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop202023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vale, C. D., Maurelli, V. A. (1983). Simulating multivariate nonnormal distributions. Psychometrika, 48(3), 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, C., Su, S., Weiss, D. J. (2018). Robustness of parameter estimation to assumptions of normality in the multidimensional graded response model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(3), 403–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Y., Green, S. B. (2015). Evaluation of structural equation modeling estimates of reliability for scales with ordered categorical items. Methodology, 11(1), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Grønneberg and Foldnes Supplementary material

Grønneberg and Foldnes Supplementary material 1
Download Grønneberg and Foldnes Supplementary material(File)
File 113.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Grønneberg and Foldnes Supplementary material

Grønneberg and Foldnes Supplementary material 2
Download Grønneberg and Foldnes Supplementary material(File)
File 11.7 KB