A Comparison of Factor Score Estimation Methods in the Presence of Missing Data: Reliability and an Application to Nicotine Dependence

Ryne Estabrook*, Michael Neale

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

74 Scopus citations

Abstract

Factor score estimation is a controversial topic in psychometrics, and the estimation of factor scores from exploratory factor models has historically received a great deal of attention. However, both confirmatory factor models and the existence of missing data have generally been ignored in this debate. This article presents a simulation study that compares the reliability of sum scores, regression-based and expected posterior methods for factor score estimation for confirmatory factor models in the presence of missing data. Although all methods perform reasonably well with complete data, expected posterior-weighted (full) maximum likelihood methods are significantly more reliable than sum scores and regression estimators in the presence of missing data. Factor score reliability for complete data can be predicted by Guttman's 1955 formula for factor communality. Furthermore, factor score reliability for incomplete data can be reasonably approximated by communality raised to the 1/1-p(Missing) power. An empirical demonstration shows that the full maximum likelihood method best preserves the relationship between nicotine dependence and a genetic predictor under missing data. Implications and recommendations for applied research are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-27
Number of pages27
JournalMultivariate Behavioral Research
Volume48
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2013

Funding

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Statistics and Probability

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Comparison of Factor Score Estimation Methods in the Presence of Missing Data: Reliability and an Application to Nicotine Dependence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this