The use of confirmatory factor analyses in adolescent research: Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong

References

1. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998.Suche in Google Scholar

2. Quintana SM, Maxwell SE. Implications of recent developments in structural equation modeling for counseling psychology. Counsel Psychol 1999;27:485–527.10.1177/0011000099274002Suche in Google Scholar

3. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford, 2006.Suche in Google Scholar

4. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods 2000;3:4–70.10.1177/109442810031002Suche in Google Scholar

5. Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley, 1989.10.1002/9781118619179Suche in Google Scholar

6. Jenson JM. Structural factors and the quality of publication in social work journals. Soc Work Res 2005;29:67–71.10.1093/swr/29.2.67Suche in Google Scholar

7. Guo B, Perron BE, Gillespie DF. A systematic review of structural equation modeling in social work research. Brit J Soc Work 2009;39:1556–74.10.1093/bjsw/bcn101Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

8. Shek DT, Ma CM, Tang CY. Predictors of subjective outcome evaluation findings in a positive youth development program in Hong Kong. Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2011:10;249–55.10.1515/ijdhd.2011.040Suche in Google Scholar

9. Shek DT, Ma HK, Merrick J. Positive youth development: development of a pioneering program in a Chinese context. London: Freund, 2007.Suche in Google Scholar

10. Shek DT. Conceptual framework underlying the development of a positive youth development program in Hong Kong. Int J Adolesc Med Health 2006;18:303–14.10.1515/IJAMH.2006.18.3.303Suche in Google Scholar

11. Shek DT. Construction of a positive youth development program in Hong Kong. Int J Adolesc Med Health 2006;18:299–302.Suche in Google Scholar

12. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 1990;107:238–46.10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Bentler PM, Bonnet DC. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 1980;88:588–606.10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588Suche in Google Scholar

14. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL 8.80: structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, 2006.Suche in Google Scholar

15. Steiger JH, Lind JC. Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA, 1980.Suche in Google Scholar

16. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004.10.4324/9781410610904Suche in Google Scholar

17. Tanaka JS. Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993:10–39.Suche in Google Scholar

18. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999;6:1–55.10.1080/10705519909540118Suche in Google Scholar

19. Byrne BM, Stewart SM. The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: a walk through the process. Struct Equ Modeling 2006;13:287–321.10.1207/s15328007sem1302_7Suche in Google Scholar

20. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2002;9:233–55.10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5Suche in Google Scholar

21. Chou C, Bentler PM. Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995:37–55.Suche in Google Scholar

22. Curran PJ, West SG, Finch JF. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Methods 1996;1:16–29.10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16Suche in Google Scholar

23. Finney SJ, DiStefano C. Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO, editors. Structural equation modeling: a second course. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 2006:269–312.Suche in Google Scholar

24. Marsh HW, Hocevar D. The application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study self-concept: first and higher order factor structures and their invariance across age groups. Psychol Bull 1985;97:562–82.10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562Suche in Google Scholar

25. Bong M. Generality of academic self-efficacy judgments: evidence of hierarchical relations. J Educ Psychol 1997;89:696–709.10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.696Suche in Google Scholar

26. Marsh HW, Balla JR, McDonald RP. Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psychol Bull 1988;102:391–410.10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391Suche in Google Scholar

27. Horn JL, McArdle JJ, Mason R. When is invariance not invariant: a practical scientist’s view of the real concept of factorial invariance. Southern Psychol 1983;1:179–88.Suche in Google Scholar

28. Byrne BM. Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: a road less traveled. Struct Equ Modeling 2004;11: 272–300.10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8Suche in Google Scholar

29. Chen FF, Sousa KH, West SG. Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Struct Equ Modeling 2005;12: 471–92.10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7Suche in Google Scholar

30. Thompson MS, Green SB. Evaluating between-group differences in latent variable means. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO, editors. Structural equation modeling: a second course. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 2006:119–69.Suche in Google Scholar

31. Widaman KF, Reise SP. Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: applications in the substance use domain. In: Bryant KJ, Windle M, West SG, editors. The science of prevention: methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1997:281–324.Suche in Google Scholar

32. Shek DT, Ma CM. Program implementers’ evaluation of the Project P.A.T.H.S.: findings based on different datasets over time. ScientificWorldJournal 2012;2012:918437.10.1100/2012/132826Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

33. Shek DT, Sun RC. Participants’ evaluation of the Project P.A.T.H.S.: are findings based on different datasets consistent? ScientificWorldJournal 2012;2012:187450.Suche in Google Scholar

34. Shek DT, Sun RC. The Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong – lessons learned and implications for positive youth development programs. ScientificWorldJournal 2012;2012:687536.Suche in Google Scholar

35. Shek DT, Sun RC. Post-course subjective outcome evaluation of a course promoting leadership and intrapersonal development in university students in Hong Kong. Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2013;12:193–202.10.1515/ijdhd-2012-0136Suche in Google Scholar