With model 2, I am trying to set a covariation between the two variables that equaled one, representing one continuum (Lewis, 2002, p: 11 doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3069380?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents)
And then I wanted to compare the results of two CFA models through a Chi-squared test.
MODEL1.fit = cfa(MODELO1, data=DATAIND, std.lv = TRUE)
summary(MODEL1.fit, fit.measures=TRUE, standardized = TRUE, rsquare = TRUE)
MODEL2.fit = cfa(MODEL2, data=DATAIND, std.lv = TRUE)
summary(MODEL2.fit, fit.measures=TRUE, standardized = TRUE, rsquare = TRUE)
Anova (Model1, Model2)
Is that this approach correct?
In advance thank you very much for your help.
Is that this approach correct?
- Each item was allowed to load only on the factor for which it was a proposed, and no correlations were permitted in the error structure.
- Consistent with our conceptual framework, the two planned activities were allowed to covary, reflecting their tight coupling.
Model 2 adds constraints to model 1. Specifically, we set the covariations between activities equal to one. These constraints signify that contrasting approaches comprise a single construct— for instance, that participative (B) and directive (E) control are two ends of the same continuum.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lavaan" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lavaan+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lav...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lavaan.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
C ~~ 1*FB ~~ 1*EB~~ CE~~ F
B~~ cor.label*C
B~~ cor.label*F
E~~ cor.label*F
E~~ cor.label*C