Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Sociological Methods & Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by RAFFALOVICH, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by BOHRNSTEDT, G. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Common, Specific, and Error Variance Components of Factor Models

Estimation with Longitudinal Data

LAWRENCE E. RAFFALOVICH

University of Texas at Austin

GEORGE W. BOHRNSTEDT

Indiana University

In the classic factor-analysis model, the total variance of an item is decomposed into common, specific, and random error components. Since with cross-sectional data it is not possible to estimate the specific variance component, specific and random error variance are summed to the item's uniqueness. This procedure imposes a downward bias to item reliability estimates, however, and results in correlated item uniqueness in longitudinal models. In this article, we describe a method for estimating common, specific, and random error variance with longitudinal data. An empirical example demonstrates the specification and testing of hypotheses regarding the temporal invariance of common, specific, and error components, and the practical utility of our approach. This example makes clear the limitations of combining specific and random error components. The assumption that all unique variance is random error is shown to be untenable.

Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 15, No. 4, 385-405 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/0049124187015004003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Political Research QuarterlyHome page
R. Herrera, T. Epperlein, and E. R.A.N. Smith
The Stability of Congressional Roll-Call Indexes
Political Research Quarterly, June 1, 1995; 48(2): 403 - 416.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Stat Methods Med ResHome page
P. Bentler and J. Stein
Structural equation models in medical research
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, August 1, 1992; 1(2): 159 - 181.
[Abstract] [PDF]