Abstract. The common factor model – by far the most widely used model for factor analysis – assumes equal item intercepts across respondents. Due to idiosyncratic ways of understanding and answering items of a questionnaire, this assumption is often violated, leading to an underestimation of model fit. Maydeu-Olivares and Coffman (2006) suggested the introduction of a random intercept into the model to address this concern. The present study applies this method to six established instruments (measuring depression, procrastination, optimism, self-esteem, core self-evaluations, and self-regulation) with ambiguous factor structures, using data from representative general population samples. In testing and comparing three alternative factor models (one-factor model, two-factor model, and one-factor model with a random intercept) and analyzing differential correlational patterns with an external criterion, we empirically demonstrate the random intercept model’s merit, and clarify the factor structure for the above-mentioned questionnaires. In sum, we recommend the random intercept model for cases in which acquiescence is suspected to affect response behavior.
Beyond Cause to Consequence: The Road from Possible to Core Self-Revision
