Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 17, 2026

A Tablet-Based Curriculum-Based Measurement Protocol for Kindergarten Writing
Published on: February 7, 2025
Evaluating the MSCEIT V2.0 via CFA: comment on Mayer et al. (2003)
1School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia. gignac@deakin.edu.au
Abstract:
This investigation uncovered several substantial errors in the confirmatory factor analysis results reported by J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, D. R. Caruso, and G. Sitarenios (see record 2003-02341-015). Specifically, the values associated with the close-fit indices (normed fit index, Tucker-Lewis Index, and root-mean-square error of approximation) are inaccurate. A reanalysis of the Mayer et al. subscale intercorrelation matrix provided accurate values of the close-fit indices, which resulted in different evaluations of the models tested by J. D. Mayer et al. Contrary to J. D. Mayer et al., the 1-factor model and the 2-factor model did not provide good fit. Although the 4-factor model was still considered good fitting, the non-constrained 4-factor model yielded a non-positive definite matrix, which was interpreted to be due to the fact that two of the branch-level factors (Perceiving and Facilitating) were collinear, suggesting that a model with 4 factors was implausible.
Insights
Reanalysis revealed errors in Mayer et al.
Area of Science:
- Psychological measurement
- Statistical modeling in psychology
Background:
- Critique of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in emotional intelligence research.
- Examination of fit indices (normed fit index, Tucker-Lewis Index, root-mean-square error of approximation) accuracy.
Discussion:
- Identified substantial errors in previously reported CFA fit indices.
- Reanalyzed subscale intercorrelation matrix to correct fit index values.
- Evaluated model fit based on corrected indices, differing from Mayer et al.'s conclusions.
Key Insights:
- The 1-factor and 2-factor models demonstrated poor fit upon reanalysis.
- The 4-factor model, while initially appearing to fit well, presented issues.
- A non-positive definite matrix in the unconstrained 4-factor model indicated factor collinearity.
Outlook:
- The collinearity of Perceiving and Facilitating factors suggests a 4-factor model is implausible.
- Highlights the importance of rigorous statistical analysis and reporting in psychological research.
- Underscores the need for careful interpretation of model fit, especially concerning factor collinearity.
Related Concept Videos
Multiple Comparison Tests
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
Self-Evaluation: Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification
Theory of Attribution II: Kelley's Covariation Theory
Sources of Self-Esteem II: Performance Feedback
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model
