No description available.

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD (Industrial Psychology) / Organizations exist for the primary aim of meeting particular objectives: innovation and advancement, customer satisfaction, profit making and delivery of quality goods and services. These goals are mostly channelled with the intent of demonstrating high performance crucial for the continued existence of the organization especially in these rapidly changing global economies. This target, however, cannot be achieved without the aid of employees in the organization. A plethora of previous studies have proven that efficiency, productivity, high performance and stability on the job can be better achieved when the employees are dedicated, committed to their work roles and experience work engagement. The experience of work engagement on the part of the employees is not a random event; it depends on a myriad of factors that include authentic leadership. Leaders have a cumulative change effect on their followers; hence, leaders in an organization can be termed as core drivers of employee engagement. Hence, it becomes imperative to seek to understand what authentic leadership as a construct has to offer to the workplace.

Two Monte Carlo studies were conducted to investigate the sensitivity of fit indices in detecting model misspecification in multilevel structural equation models (MSEM) with normally distributed or dichotomous outcome variables separately under various conditions. Simulation results showed that RMSEA and CFI only reflected within-model fit. In addition, SRMR for within-model (SRMR-W) was more sensitive to within-model misspecifications in factor covariances than pattern coefficients regardless of the impact of other design factors. Researchers should use SRMR-W in combination with RMSEA and CFI to evaluate the within-mode. On the other hand, SRMR for between-model (SRMR-B) was less likely to detect between-model misspecifications when ICC decreased. Lastly, the performance of WRMR was dominated by the misfit of within-model. In addition, WRMR was less likely to detect the misspecified between-models when ICC was relative low. Therefore, WRMR can be used to evaluate the between-model fit when the within-models were correctly specified and the ICC was not too small.

Current recommended cutoffs for determining measurement invariance have typically derived from simulation studies that have focused on multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, often using continuous data. These cutoffs may be inappropriate for ordered categorical data in a longitudinal setting. This study conducts two Monte Carlo studies that evaluate the performance of four popular model fit indices used to determine measurement invariance. The comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were all found to be inconsistent across various simulation conditions as well as invariance tests, and thus were not recommended for use in longitudinal measurement invariance testing. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was the most consistent and robust fit index across simulation conditions, and thus we recommended using ≥ 0.01 as a cutoff for determining longitudinal measurement invariance with ordered categorical indicators.

O Modelo de Equações Estruturais (MEE) é habitualmente ajustado para realizar uma análise confirmatória sobre as conjecturas de um pesquisador acerca do relacionamento entre as variáveis observadas e latentes de algum estudo. Na prática, a maneira mais recorrente de avaliar a qualidade das estimativas de um MEE é a partir de medidas que buscam mensurar o quanto a usual matriz de covariâncias clássicas ou ordinárias se distancia da matriz de covariâncias do modelo ajustado, ou a magnitude do afastamento entre as funções de discrepância do modelo hipotético e do modelo saturado. Entretanto, elas podem não captar problemas no ajuste quando há muitos parâmetros a estimar ou bastantes observações. A fim de detectar irregularidades no ajustamento resultantes do impacto provocado pela presença de outliers no conjunto de dados, este trabalho contemplou alguns indicadores conhecidos na literatura, como também considerou alterações no Índice da Qualidade do Ajuste (ou GFI, de Goodness-of-Fit Index) e no Índice Corrigido da Qualidade do Ajuste (ou AGFI, de Ajusted Goodness-of-Fit Index), ambos nas expressões para estimação de parâmetros pelo método de Máxima Verossimilhança, que consistiram em substituir a tradicional matriz de covariâncias pelas matrizes de covariâncias computadas com os seguintes estimadores: Elipsoide de Volume Mínimo, Covariância de Determinante Mínimo, S, MM e Gnanadesikan-Kettenring Ortogonalizado (GKO). Através de estudos de simulação sobre perturbações de desvio de simetria e excesso de curtose, em baixa e alta frações de contaminação, em diferentes tamanhos de amostra e quantidades de variáveis observadas afetadas, foi possível constatar que as propostas de modificação do GFI e do AGFI adaptadas pelo estimador GKO foram as únicas que conseguiram ser informativas em todas essas situações, devendo-se escolher a primeira ou a segunda respectivamente quando a quantidade de parâmetros a serem estimados é baixa ou elevada. / The Structural Equation Model (SEM) is usually set to perform a confirmatory analysis on the assumptions of a researcher about the relationship between the observed variables and the latent variables of such a study. In practice, the most iterant way of evaluating the quality of the estimates of a SEM comes either from procedures of measuring how distant the usual classic or ordinary covariance matrix is from the covariance matrix of the adjusted model, or from the magnitude of the hiatus in discrepancy functions of both the hypothetical model and the saturated model. Nevertheless, they may fail to capture problems in the adjustment in the occurrence of either several parameters to estimate or several observations. This study included indicators known in the literature in order to detect irregularities in the adjustment resulting from the impact caused by the presence of outliers in the data set. This study has also considered changes in both the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and the Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) in the expressions for parameter estimation by Maximum Likelihood method, which consisted in replacing the traditional covariance matrix by the robust covariance matrices computed through the following estimators: Minimum Volume Ellipsoid, Minimum Covariance Determinant, S, MM and Orthogonalized Gnanadesikan-Kettenring (OGK). Through simulation studies on disturbances of both symmetry deviations and excess kurtosis in both low and high fractions of contamination in different sample sizes and quantities of affected observed variables it has become clear that the proposals of modification of both the GFI and the AGFI adapted by the OGK estimator were the only ones able to be informative in all these situations. It must be considered that GFI or AGFI must be used when the number of parameters to be estimated is either low or high, respectively.

O Modelo de Equações Estruturais (MEE) é habitualmente ajustado para realizar uma análise confirmatória sobre as conjecturas de um pesquisador acerca do relacionamento entre as variáveis observadas e latentes de algum estudo. Na prática, a maneira mais recorrente de avaliar a qualidade das estimativas de um MEE é a partir de medidas que buscam mensurar o quanto a usual matriz de covariâncias clássicas ou ordinárias se distancia da matriz de covariâncias do modelo ajustado, ou a magnitude do afastamento entre as funções de discrepância do modelo hipotético e do modelo saturado. Entretanto, elas podem não captar problemas no ajuste quando há muitos parâmetros a estimar ou bastantes observações. A fim de detectar irregularidades no ajustamento resultantes do impacto provocado pela presença de outliers no conjunto de dados, este trabalho contemplou alguns indicadores conhecidos na literatura, como também considerou alterações no Índice da Qualidade do Ajuste (ou GFI, de Goodness-of-Fit Index) e no Índice Corrigido da Qualidade do Ajuste (ou AGFI, de Ajusted Goodness-of-Fit Index), ambos nas expressões para estimação de parâmetros pelo método de Máxima Verossimilhança, que consistiram em substituir a tradicional matriz de covariâncias pelas matrizes de covariâncias computadas com os seguintes estimadores: Elipsoide de Volume Mínimo, Covariância de Determinante Mínimo, S, MM e Gnanadesikan-Kettenring Ortogonalizado (GKO). Através de estudos de simulação sobre perturbações de desvio de simetria e excesso de curtose, em baixa e alta frações de contaminação, em diferentes tamanhos de amostra e quantidades de variáveis observadas afetadas, foi possível constatar que as propostas de modificação do GFI e do AGFI adaptadas pelo estimador GKO foram as únicas que conseguiram ser informativas em todas essas situações, devendo-se escolher a primeira ou a segunda respectivamente quando a quantidade de parâmetros a serem estimados é baixa ou elevada. / The Structural Equation Model (SEM) is usually set to perform a confirmatory analysis on the assumptions of a researcher about the relationship between the observed variables and the latent variables of such a study. In practice, the most iterant way of evaluating the quality of the estimates of a SEM comes either from procedures of measuring how distant the usual classic or ordinary covariance matrix is from the covariance matrix of the adjusted model, or from the magnitude of the hiatus in discrepancy functions of both the hypothetical model and the saturated model. Nevertheless, they may fail to capture problems in the adjustment in the occurrence of either several parameters to estimate or several observations. This study included indicators known in the literature in order to detect irregularities in the adjustment resulting from the impact caused by the presence of outliers in the data set. This study has also considered changes in both the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and the Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) in the expressions for parameter estimation by Maximum Likelihood method, which consisted in replacing the traditional covariance matrix by the robust covariance matrices computed through the following estimators: Minimum Volume Ellipsoid, Minimum Covariance Determinant, S, MM and Orthogonalized Gnanadesikan-Kettenring (OGK). Through simulation studies on disturbances of both symmetry deviations and excess kurtosis in both low and high fractions of contamination in different sample sizes and quantities of affected observed variables it has become clear that the proposals of modification of both the GFI and the AGFI adapted by the OGK estimator were the only ones able to be informative in all these situations. It must be considered that GFI or AGFI must be used when the number of parameters to be estimated is either low or high, respectively.

No description available.

線性結構關係模式是一種考慮以多個直線方程式來分析處理變數間因果關 係的統計方法，其結合了因徑分析及因素分析之優點並將之融合於整體模 式中。線性結構關係模式經過參數估計後，需評估整個模式之好壞，因此 許多學者嘗試提出一些評估模式好壞的適合度指標，如一般常用的卡方檢 定、殘差均方根、適合度指標、調整後適合度指標以及基準指標等。這些 指標中有的指標會受到樣本數大小或樣本分布的影響，有些指標受模式隱 藏變數多寡或因素指標多寡的影響，有些指標需有嚴格的條件（如樣本需 服從常態分布）及前提方可適用，且有些指標的分布是未知的，因此欲對 這些指標進行區間估計、假設檢定、或顯著性差異比較是不可能的。基於 上述各種適合度指標的缺點，本論文利用拔靴法進行重抽樣求得拔靴分布 來解決上述各種問題。然而傳統的拔靴法在線性結構關係模式上是不適用 的，因此，再提出一改良拔靴法程序，求得拔靴分布來做為評估模式好壞 的依據，並利用改良拔靴法來做巢狀模式之顯著性差異比較及利用抽樣誤 差和非抽樣誤差觀念來評估模式適合度。

It has previously been determined that using 3 or 4 points on a categorized response scale will fail to produce a continuous distribution of scores. However, there is no evidence, thus far, revealing the number of scale points that may indeed possess an approximate or sufficiently continuous distribution. This study provides the evidence to suggest the level of categorization in discrete scales that makes them directly comparable to continuous scales in terms of their measurement properties. To do this, we first introduced a novel procedure for simulating discretely scaled data that was both informed and validated through the principles of the Classical True Score Model. Second, we employed a measurement invariance (MI) approach to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to directly compare the measurement quality of continuously scaled factor models to that of discretely scaled models. The simulated design conditions of the study varied with respect to item-specific variance (low, moderate, high), random error variance (none, moderate, high), and discrete scale categorization (number of scale points ranged from 3 to 101). A population analogue approach was taken with respect to sample size (N = 10,000). We concluded that there are conditions under which response scales with 11 to 15 scale points can reproduce the measurement properties of a continuous scale. Using response scales with more than 15 points may be, for the most part, unnecessary. Scales having from 3 to 10 points introduce a significant level of measurement error, and caution should be taken when employing such scales. The implications of this research and future directions are discussed.

It has previously been determined that using 3 or 4 points on a categorized response scale will fail to produce a continuous distribution of scores. However, there is no evidence, thus far, revealing the number of scale points that may indeed possess an approximate or sufficiently continuous distribution. This study provides the evidence to suggest the level of categorization in discrete scales that makes them directly comparable to continuous scales in terms of their measurement properties. To do this, we first introduced a novel procedure for simulating discretely scaled data that was both informed and validated through the principles of the Classical True Score Model. Second, we employed a measurement invariance (MI) approach to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to directly compare the measurement quality of continuously scaled factor models to that of discretely scaled models. The simulated design conditions of the study varied with respect to item-specific variance (low, moderate, high), random error variance (none, moderate, high), and discrete scale categorization (number of scale points ranged from 3 to 101). A population analogue approach was taken with respect to sample size (N = 10,000). We concluded that there are conditions under which response scales with 11 to 15 scale points can reproduce the measurement properties of a continuous scale. Using response scales with more than 15 points may be, for the most part, unnecessary. Scales having from 3 to 10 points introduce a significant level of measurement error, and caution should be taken when employing such scales. The implications of this research and future directions are discussed.