Evaluating statistical fit of confirmatory bifactor models: Updated recommendations and a review of current practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confirmatory bifactor models have become very popular in psychological applications, but they are increasingly criticized for statistical pitfalls such as tendency to overfit, tendency to produce anomalous results, instability of solutions, and underidentification problems. In part to combat this state of affairs, many different reliability and dimensionality measures have been proposed to help researchers evaluate the quality of the obtained bifactor solution. However, in empirical practice, the evaluation of bifactor models is largely based on structural equation model fit indices. Other critical indicators of solution quality, such as patterns of general and group factor loadings, whether all estimates are interpretable, and values of reliability coefficients, are often not taken into account. In addition, in the methodological literature, some confusion exists about the appropriate interpretation and application of some bifactor reliability coefficients. In this article, we accomplish several goals. First, we review reliability coefficients for bifactor models and their correct interpretations, and we provide expectations for their values. Second, to help steer researchers away from structural equation model fit indices and to improve current practice, we provide a checklist for evaluating the statistical fit of bifactor models. Third, we evaluate the state of current practice by examining 96 empirical articles employing confirmatory bifactor models across different areas of psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.138 | 0.291 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".