Abstract
Multitrait-Multimethod (MTMM) matrices are often analyzed by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). However, fitting MTMM models often leads to improper solutions, or non-convergence. In an attempt to overcome these problems, various alternative CFA models have been proposed, but with none of these the problem of finding improper solutions was solved completely. In the present paper, an approach is proposed where improper solutions are ruled out altogether and convergence is guaranteed. The approach is based on constrained variants of components analysis (CA). Besides the fact that these methods do not give improper solutions, they have the advantage that they provide component scores which can later on be used to relate the components to external variables. The new methods are illustrated by means of simulated data, as well as empirical data sets.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Algina, J. (1980). A note on identification in the oblique and orthogonal factor analysis models.Psychometrika, 45, 393–396.
Anderson, T. W., & Rubin, H. (1956). Statistical inference in factor analysis. In: J. Neymann (Ed.)Proceedings of the third Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability (Vol. 5). Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1990). Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: The case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 547–560.
Bekker, P. A. (1986). A note on the identification of restricted factor loading matrices.Psychometrika, 51, 607–611.
Brannick, M. T., & Spector, P. E. (1990). Estimation problems of the block diagonal model of the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 325–340.
Browne, M. W. (1984). The decomposition of multitrait-multimethod matrices.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 1–21.
Browne, M. W. (1993). Models for multitrait-multimethod matrices. In R. Steyer, K. F. Wender, & K. F. Widaman (Eds.),Psychometric Methodology. Proceedings of the 7th European Meeting of the Psychometric Society in Trier (pp. 61–73). Stuttgart and New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Cliff, N. (1966). Orthogonal rotation to congruence.Psychometrika, 31, 33–42.
Dudgeon, P. (1994). A reparameterization of the restricted factor analysis model for multitrait-multimethod matrices.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 283–308.
Grayson, D., & Marsh, H. W. (1994). Identification with deficient rank loading matrices in confirmatory factor analysis: Multitrait-multimethod models.Psychometrika, 59, 121–134.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989).LISREL 7. A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: Scientific Software.
Kenny, D. A. (1979).Correlation and Causality. New York: Wiley.
Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 112, 165–172.
Kiers, H. A. L., & Takane, Y. (1993). Constrained DEDICOM.Psychometrika, 58, 339–355.
Kruskal, J. B., Harshman, R. A., & Lundy, M. E. (1989). How 3-MFA data can cause degenerate PARAFAC solutions, among other relationships. In R. Coppi & S. Bolasco (Eds.),Multiway Data Analysis (pp. 115–122). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Lawler, E. E. (1967). The multitrait-multimethod approach to measuring managerial job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 369–381.
Marsh, H. W. (1989). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions.Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335–361.
Marsh, H. W., & Bailey, M. (1991). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-multimethod data: A comparison of alternative models.Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 47–70.
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.
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices.Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 231–248.
Millsap, R. E. (1992). Sufficient conditions for rotational uniqueness in the additive MTMM model.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 125–138.
Penrose, R. (1956). On best approximate solutions of linear matrix equations.Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 52, 17–19.
Schmitt, N., & Stults, D. M. (1986). Methodology review: Analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices.Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 1–22.
Takane, Y., Kiers, H. A. L., & de Leeuw, J. (1995). Component analysis with different sets of constraints on different dimensions.Psychometrika, 60, 259–280.
Werts, C. E., & Linn, R. L. (1970). Path analysis: Psychological examples.Psychological Bulletin, 74, 193–212.
Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data.Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26.
Widaman, K. F. (1990). Bias in pattern loadings represented by common factor analysis and component analysis.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 89–95.
Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263–311.
Wothke, W. (1987). Multivariate linear models of the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC ED 283850, TM 870369).
Wothke, W., & Browne, M. W. (1990). The direct product model for the MTMM matrix parameterized as a second order factor analysis model.Psychometrika, 55, 255–262.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research has been made possible by a fellowship from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences to the first author. The authors are obliged to three anonymous reviewers and an associate editor for constructive suggestions on the first version of this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kiers, H.A.L., Takane, Y. & ten Berge, J.M.F. The analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices via constrained components analysis. Psychometrika 61, 601–628 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294039
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294039