Bifactor Modelling

Mahesh Ramalingam
 Lecture Outline
• Describe the nature of bifactor modelling

• Describe issues that arise in conceptualizing and modelling

multidimensionality,

• Outline confirmatory bifactor modelling,

• Differentiate between bifactor and second-order models, and

• Describe strengths and limitations associated with bifactor

modelling.

2
 Dimensionality
• Many psychological measures are constructed to
capture a single latent variable of interest (e.g.
depression, anxiety, self-esteem).

• Factor analytic studies often reveal evidence of both a

general factor and multidimensionality.

• When subjected to CFA, a scale almost always

displays a multidimensional structure.

3
 Dimensionality
Unsurprising given the challenges inherent in writing a
set of scale items that attempt to;

1. Measure a single latent variable of interest but are

not entirely redundant (i.e., the same question asked
over and over),
2. Are heterogeneous enough to validly represent the
diverse manifestations of the construct, and
3. Provide acceptable reliability.

4
 Dimensionality
• Need to create a heterogeneous set of
items to appropriately capture the
entire breath of a given construct (e.g.
psychological and psychological
components of anxiety).

• Puts researchers in a difficult position:

• Measure one thing while
simultaneously measuring diverse
aspects of this same thing.

5
 Dimensionality
• Not surprising to find conflicting
evidence of unidemsionality and
multidimensionality for certain
psychological measures.

• Leads to debates - measuring a

single construct or a variety of
distinct, yet related, constructs?

• Bifactor modelling in its simplest form

offers an appealing solution to these
kinds of problems.
6
 Unidimensional MODEL

• Underlying structure of a measure are usually

assessed according to three general forms.

1. The unidemsional model

 Each item is influenced by a single common factor

and a uniqueness term that reflects both systematic
and random error components.

7
Unidimensional MODEL

8
 Unidimensional MODEL

 Often the hoped for structure.

 Summed scores on the individual indicators provide a

clear indication of individual differences on the latent
variable of interest (e.g. depression, self-esteem etc.).

 Variation in each item on the scale is determined by

levels of the general latent variable of interest.

9
 Unidimensional MODEL
 Even when scales are constructed
to capture a single psychological
construct unidimensional solutions
are rarely identified.

 Necessary then to find alternative

multidimensional model
structures.

 The second type of structural

model is the correlated traits
model.
10
Correlated traits model

11
 Correlated traits model
 Latent variable of interest is separated into its
component parts.

 Components usually considered to be related to

varying degrees.

 No attempt to measure a single common construct

(e.g. PTSD) – rather the various components of PTSD
are being measured.

 Multiple latent variables are correlated - no attempt

made to place a measurement structure on the
correlated latent factors.
12
 Higher order model
• The third type of structural model normally considered
is a higher order model

13
 Higher order model
 Includes a single common source of variation – unlike
correlated traits model

 Correlations between the first order factors are explained

in terms of a higher order factor
 Latent variable of interest is being modelled but at a more
abstract or distal level then in the unidimensional model.

• No direct relationship between the latent variable of

interest (PTSD) and each of the indicators of PTSD.

 Rather there is an indirect pathway mediated by the first

order traits.
14
 BIFACTOR MODEL
 An alternative model conceptualisation exists but is rarely
applied in the personality and psychopathology domains. This
type of model is the bifactor model.

15
 BIFACTOR MODEL
• Variation among individual indicators is assumed to arise
for a number of sources.

• In a simple form - all indicators are modelled to load onto a

single common latent factor – the latent variable of interest
(PTSD).

• But, item covariation can also arise due to what are called
‘group factors’ or in some models ‘nuisance factors’.

16
 BIFACTOR MODEL
• Bifactor models include two or more uncorrelated (orthogonal)
group/nuisance factors.

• Each indicator is allowed to load onto two distinct latent

variables: A general factor (e.g. PTSD) and one (and only one!)
group/nuisance factor (e.g. Intrusions).

• Covariation is caused by a group of items tapping similar

aspects of the trait (e.g. items measuring symptoms of
Hyperarousal).

17
 Factor Analysis
• Appearances of multidimensionality can be the
result of heterogeneous item content
• A given set of indicator are primarily attempting to
measure the latent variable of interest but they
are also purposefully measuring another factor
(this is termed a ‘grouping factor’), or
• A given set of indicators are primarily attempting
to measure the latent variable of interest but they
inadvertently measuring another factor (this is
termed a ‘nuisance factor),

18
 BIFACTOR or higher order

• Bifactor model allows researchers to retain the idea of a

single common construct (PTSD) while also recognising
multidimensionality (Intrusions etc.)

• A useful alternative to the traditionally employed higher

order model.

• In many ways the bifactor model and the higher-order

model are very similar but there are a few important
differences that are worth recognising.

19
 BIFACTOR or higher order

• Higher-order models are frequently used - bifactor models are not.

• Major difference lies in how multidimensionality is conceptualised.

• In “correlated traits” models assumption that the observed item

covariation is the result of two or more correlated primary factors.
• Higher order model - latent variable of interest (PTSD) is
determined by what a set of primary latent variables have in
common not what observable indicators have in common.

20
 BIFACTOR MODEL
• Bifactor models - latent variable(s) of interest explains
some proportion of covariation among observable
indicators
• Other group/nuisance factors explain additional covariation
among observable indicators.

• The latent variable of interest and group/nuisance factors

are therefore on equal conceptual footing and compete for
explaining item covariance—neither factor “higher” or
“lower” than the other.

21
 BIFACTOR MODEL
• In contrast to the higher-order model conceptualisation, in
a bifactor model conceptualisation the latent variable(s) of
interest is measured by what is common among the
observable indicators.

• This means that variations in the intensity of the specific

latent variable of interest will directly influence levels of the
observable indicators rather than indirectly, as in the case
with the higher-order model.

22
 Applications
• A bifactor modelling approach can be used to address
important issues that routinely arise in psychometric
analysis of personality and psychopathology measures.
• Bifactor modelling is useful for:

1. Evaluating the plausibility of subscales,

2. Determining the degree to which sum scores reflect a
single factor, and
3. Evaluating the feasibility of applying a unidimensional
model structure to a measure with heterogeneous
indicators.
23
 Subscales
• Researchers often argue about the usefulness of creating
subscales.

• In many cases where a single general factor is broken

down into subscales these traits are highly correlated -
multicollinearity becomes a problem.

• Our ability to determine the unique contribution of each of

the subscales in predicting some important outcome is
severely compromised.

24
 Subscales
• A second reason often advanced for creating subscales is
that the subscales may have differential correlations with
external variables.
• Technically true but weak justification for “cutting up” a
measure.
• Any two items not perfectly correlated potentially have
different correlations with external variables.
• However it makes little sense to argue that one should
investigate external correlates for each item separately.

25
 Subscales
• A third and very seldom recognised problem with creating
subscales emerges from a bifactor modelling perspective.

• Subscale scores reflect variation on both a general factor

and a more specific group/nuisance factor.

• The effect of this is that the subscale may appear to be

reliable, but in fact, that reliability is a function of the
general trait, not the specific group factor.

26
 Subscales
• Finally, it has also been noted that subscales are often so
unreliable compared to the composite score that the
composite score is actually a better predictor of an
individual’s true score on a subscale than is the subscale
score itself.

• Sinharay and Puhan (2007) have therefore argued that

subscale scores are seldom, if ever, empirically justified.

• How can bifactor models help?

27
 Subscales
• Provides a method for determining the usefulness of creating
subscales.
• Because the general and group/nuisance factors are
uncorrelated in a bifactor model, inspection of the factor
loadings on the general and group/nuisance factors is
informative.
• If factor loadings are high on the general factor and low on the
group/nuisance factors - makes little sense to create subscales.
• If factor loadings are high for both the general factor and the
group/nuisance factors - subscale creation should be
considered.

28
 Applications
• Reise, Moore, and Haviland (2010) - main problem in
traditional psychometric evaluation of scales is that the
wrong default model is used.

• A unidimensional model is normally used as the default

model and is also frequently a researcher’s ideal solution.

• Yet, item response data drawn from complex measures

are rarely, if ever, strictly unidimensional.

29
 Applications
• In a way it’s also not desirable to achieve such a solution
• To achieve unidimensionality one essentially has to write a set
of items with very narrow conceptual bandwidth (i.e., the same
item written over and over in slightly different ways)
• Results in poor predictive power or theoretical usefulness.

• Reise et al. (2010) argue that a bifactor model, which contains a

single common trait but also allows for multidimensionality due
to item content diversity, provides a better foundational model
for conceptualizing dimensionality.

30
 Strengths
• Ability to maintain a unidimensional conceptualisation while also
recognising issues of multidimensionality.
• What else?
• So far we have focused on the role on grouping factors.

• Factors that are present within a scale that arise from

intentionally attempting to capture complexities of a particular
psychological construct (e.g. the cognitive-affective and
somatic-performance components of depression).

• But, what about nuisance factors?

31
 Strengths
• Factors that are present within a scale which arise
unintentionally when attempting to capture the primary latent
variable(s) of interest.
• When unwanted nuisance factors are present within a scale the
fit of a theoretically derived model may be affected.
• Bifactor models allow researchers to model (control for) these
unwanted nuisance factors
• Allows for a clearer assessment of the adequacy of theoretically
derived models.

32
 Limitations
• The general and group/nuisance factor must be specified to be
uncorrelated.
• What does it mean to propose the existence of a group factor such
as Intrusions that partially reflect PTSD but which also has a
specific component that is independent of PTSD?
• Many researchers are therefore sceptical that the model itself
makes any sense.
• Highly restrictive assumptions which need to satisfied in order that
group/nuisance factors will be identified.
• Data must be multidimensional but also that the multidimensionality
be well structured - each item measures a general factor and one,
and only one, group/nuisance factor.

33
 Conclusion
• Many psychological scales are constructed to measure a single
latent variable of interest (e.g. depression, self-esteem).

• However due to item heterogeneity necessary to capture the

subtleties and complexities of a psych construct scales
invariably display signs of multidimensionality.

• Correlated trait models and higher-order models are traditionally

applied in order to model the underlying structure of such
scales.

34
 Conclusion
• Bifactor models provide a plausible and useful alternative to
traditionally employed higher-order model in order to maintain a
unidimensional structure consistent with the theoretical
foundation upon which the measure was constructed while also
taking into account important item grouping factors.
• Bifactor modelling also allows researchers to model (control for)
unwanted/unintended/meaningless nuisance factors which are
preventing theoretically plausible models from achieving
appropriate model fit.
• A number of important strengths and limitations should be
considered when deciding whether or not to conduct a bifactor
analysis.

35