BI-Factor EFA
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2025 9:24 am
Hello,
I replicated the bifactor EFA example from Muthén & Muthén using SEMLj (jamovi). While all fit indices are identical to the Mplus results, I observe small differences in factor loadings and standard errors.
The SEMLj syntax used is:
Rotation: Geomin
Geomin epsilon: 0.0001
The model specifies a bifactor structure with one general factor (FG) and two specific factors (FF1, FF2), constrained to be orthogonal.
Given that the fit indices are identical, could the small discrepancies in loadings and SEs be attributed to:
Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Mplus: https://www.statmodel.com/usersguide/chap5/ex5.29.html
SEMLj: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ceoDYC ... sp=sharing
I replicated the bifactor EFA example from Muthén & Muthén using SEMLj (jamovi). While all fit indices are identical to the Mplus results, I observe small differences in factor loadings and standard errors.
The SEMLj syntax used is:
Code: Select all
efa("efa1")*FG +
efa("efa1")*FF1 +
efa("efa1")*FF2 =~
y1 + y2 + y3 + y4 + y5 + y65 + y6 + y7 + y8 + y9 + y10
FG ~~ 0*FF1
FG ~~ 0*FF2
FF1 ~~ 0*FF2Geomin epsilon: 0.0001
The model specifies a bifactor structure with one general factor (FG) and two specific factors (FF1, FF2), constrained to be orthogonal.
Given that the fit indices are identical, could the small discrepancies in loadings and SEs be attributed to:
- Numerical optimization in Geomin rotation
- Differences in starting values or rotation algorithms (GPA vs. Mplus defaults)
- Factor scaling or sign indeterminacy
- Numerical computation of standard errors
Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Mplus: https://www.statmodel.com/usersguide/chap5/ex5.29.html
SEMLj: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ceoDYC ... sp=sharing