The Bifactor Model Fits Better Than the Higher-Order Model in More Than 90% of Comparisons for Mental Abilities Test Batteries
The factor structure of mental abilities has most often been depicted using a higher-order model. Under this model, general mental ability (g) is placed at the top of a pyramid, with “loading” arrows going from it to the other factors of intelligence, which in turn go to subtest scores. In contrast,...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2017-07-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Intelligence |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/3/27 |
| _version_ | 1819274564681596928 |
|---|---|
| author | Jeffrey Cucina Kevin Byle |
| author_facet | Jeffrey Cucina Kevin Byle |
| author_sort | Jeffrey Cucina |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The factor structure of mental abilities has most often been depicted using a higher-order model. Under this model, general mental ability (g) is placed at the top of a pyramid, with “loading” arrows going from it to the other factors of intelligence, which in turn go to subtest scores. In contrast, under the bifactor model (also known as the nested factors/direct hierarchical model), each subtest score has its own direct loading on g; the non-g factors (e.g., the broad abilities) do not mediate the relationships of the subtest scores with g. Here we summarized past research that compared the fit of higher-order and bifactor models using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We also analyzed additional archival datasets to compare the fit of the two models. Using a total database consisting of 31 test batteries, 58 datasets, and 1,712,509 test takers, we found stronger support for a bifactor model of g than for the traditional higher-order model. Across 166 comparisons, the bifactor model had median increases of 0.076 for the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), 0.083 for the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and 0.078 for the Normed Fit Index (NFI) and decreases of 0.028 for the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and 1343 for the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Consequently, researchers should consider using bifactor models when conducting CFAs. The bifactor model also makes the unique contributions of g and the broad abilities to subtest scores more salient to test users. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-23T23:10:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a622741363e848c1844e832f3fe8501d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2079-3200 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-23T23:10:26Z |
| publishDate | 2017-07-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Intelligence |
| spelling | doaj.art-a622741363e848c1844e832f3fe8501d2022-12-21T17:26:41ZengMDPI AGJournal of Intelligence2079-32002017-07-01532710.3390/jintelligence5030027jintelligence5030027The Bifactor Model Fits Better Than the Higher-Order Model in More Than 90% of Comparisons for Mental Abilities Test BatteriesJeffrey Cucina0Kevin Byle1U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1400 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20229-1145, USAU.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1400 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20229-1145, USAThe factor structure of mental abilities has most often been depicted using a higher-order model. Under this model, general mental ability (g) is placed at the top of a pyramid, with “loading” arrows going from it to the other factors of intelligence, which in turn go to subtest scores. In contrast, under the bifactor model (also known as the nested factors/direct hierarchical model), each subtest score has its own direct loading on g; the non-g factors (e.g., the broad abilities) do not mediate the relationships of the subtest scores with g. Here we summarized past research that compared the fit of higher-order and bifactor models using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We also analyzed additional archival datasets to compare the fit of the two models. Using a total database consisting of 31 test batteries, 58 datasets, and 1,712,509 test takers, we found stronger support for a bifactor model of g than for the traditional higher-order model. Across 166 comparisons, the bifactor model had median increases of 0.076 for the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), 0.083 for the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and 0.078 for the Normed Fit Index (NFI) and decreases of 0.028 for the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and 1343 for the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Consequently, researchers should consider using bifactor models when conducting CFAs. The bifactor model also makes the unique contributions of g and the broad abilities to subtest scores more salient to test users.https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/3/27intelligencemental-abilitiesfactor analysisbifactorhigher-order |
| spellingShingle | Jeffrey Cucina Kevin Byle The Bifactor Model Fits Better Than the Higher-Order Model in More Than 90% of Comparisons for Mental Abilities Test Batteries Journal of Intelligence intelligence mental-abilities factor analysis bifactor higher-order |
| title | The Bifactor Model Fits Better Than the Higher-Order Model in More Than 90% of Comparisons for Mental Abilities Test Batteries |
| title_full | The Bifactor Model Fits Better Than the Higher-Order Model in More Than 90% of Comparisons for Mental Abilities Test Batteries |
| title_fullStr | The Bifactor Model Fits Better Than the Higher-Order Model in More Than 90% of Comparisons for Mental Abilities Test Batteries |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Bifactor Model Fits Better Than the Higher-Order Model in More Than 90% of Comparisons for Mental Abilities Test Batteries |
| title_short | The Bifactor Model Fits Better Than the Higher-Order Model in More Than 90% of Comparisons for Mental Abilities Test Batteries |
| title_sort | bifactor model fits better than the higher order model in more than 90 of comparisons for mental abilities test batteries |
| topic | intelligence mental-abilities factor analysis bifactor higher-order |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/3/27 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jeffreycucina thebifactormodelfitsbetterthanthehigherordermodelinmorethan90ofcomparisonsformentalabilitiestestbatteries AT kevinbyle thebifactormodelfitsbetterthanthehigherordermodelinmorethan90ofcomparisonsformentalabilitiestestbatteries AT jeffreycucina bifactormodelfitsbetterthanthehigherordermodelinmorethan90ofcomparisonsformentalabilitiestestbatteries AT kevinbyle bifactormodelfitsbetterthanthehigherordermodelinmorethan90ofcomparisonsformentalabilitiestestbatteries |