Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: confa


From   Stas Kolenikov <skolenik@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: confa
Date   Thu, 7 Jul 2011 08:25:53 -0500

-confa- should run with survey data, but it is intended to work with
continuous data. Saying that you need to use WLS with ordinal data is
a strange piece of advice that I keep hearing over and over. I can
come up with arguments that this advice might have been based on, and
I can come up with arguments against WLS and say in favor of -gllamm-
(that will also work with survey data). Can you give the reference you
had and a specific quote?

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Aggie Chidlow
<mojamalarybka@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dear Stata users,
>
> I hope somebody can advice me..as I am quite new to "confa".
> I would like to use confa with my survey data.
>
> I have to say I am familiar with the Stanislav Kolenikow's work :
> Confirmatory Factor Analysis using Confa (2009) Stata Journal, 9(3),
> 329 - 373. I use is as a guide.
>
> Today I have read that "ml" should not be used with categorical data.
> Instead it is recommended that "wls" (i.e. weighted least squares)
> should be used as proposed by Browne(1984b).


-- 
Stas Kolenikov, also found at http://stas.kolenikov.name
Small print: I use this email account for mailing lists only.
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index