Omega cofficient CFA or PFA
Hi all,
I need to estimate coefficient omega. I am wondering what is the difference when estimating omega using the "Advanced Options", CFA or PFA?
Thank you in advanced,
Nikos
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Supported by
Comments
Hi Nikos,
so in order to find the reliability, one approach is to estimate a common factor underlying the variables. CFA and PFA are two different ways to estimate such a factor. In practice, which of the two you choose will make little difference, but for small samples PFA can yield results while CFA may not yield results at all.
Julius
Thank you Julius for your response,
Is there any reference that the two approaches CFA and PFA produce similar results? In addition, should I select non parametric bootstrap (the default option) or parametric? My experience from empirical data with small samples (around 50) suggest that PFA results in equal or higher omega values.
Nikos
I do not have a reference, that is just my experience. My paper here does show that the PFA-based omega yields accurate results for point estimation as well as intervals with non-parametric bootstrap https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2021.1891855.