Toward Improving the Modeling of MTMM Data: A Response to Geiser, Koch, and Eid (2014)

Laura Castro-Schilo, Keith F. Widaman, Kevin Grimm

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Geiser, Koch, and Eid (2014) expressed their views on an article we published describing findings from a simulation study and an empirical study of multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) data. Geiser and colleagues raised concerns with (a) our use of the term bias, (b) our statement that the correlated trait–correlated method minus one [CT–C(M–1)] model is not in line with Campbell and Fiske’s (1959) conceptualization of MTMM data, (c) our selection of a data-generating model for our simulation study, and (d) our preference for the correlated trait–correlated method (CT–CM) model over the CT–C(M–1) model. Here, we respond to and elaborate on issues raised by Geiser et al. We maintain our position on each of these issues and point to the interpretational challenges of the CT–C(M–1) model. But, we clarify our opinion that none of the existing structural models for MTMM data are flawless; each has its strengths and each has its weaknesses. We further remind readers of the goal, findings, and implications of our recently published article.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)524-533
Number of pages10
JournalStructural Equation Modeling
Volume21
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Modeling
Simulation Study
simulation
Model
Structural Model
structural model
Empirical Study
Line
trend
Term
Simulation study
Empirical study
Conceptualization
Structural model

Keywords

  • construct validity
  • CT-C(M-1) model
  • CT-CM model
  • multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) analysis
  • structural equation modeling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Modeling and Simulation
  • Decision Sciences(all)
  • Economics, Econometrics and Finance(all)
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Toward Improving the Modeling of MTMM Data : A Response to Geiser, Koch, and Eid (2014). / Castro-Schilo, Laura; Widaman, Keith F.; Grimm, Kevin.

In: Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 21, No. 4, 02.10.2014, p. 524-533.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Castro-Schilo, Laura ; Widaman, Keith F. ; Grimm, Kevin. / Toward Improving the Modeling of MTMM Data : A Response to Geiser, Koch, and Eid (2014). In: Structural Equation Modeling. 2014 ; Vol. 21, No. 4. pp. 524-533.
@article{f776fba3c42440c7a81c64017d2d7d1a,
title = "Toward Improving the Modeling of MTMM Data: A Response to Geiser, Koch, and Eid (2014)",
abstract = "Geiser, Koch, and Eid (2014) expressed their views on an article we published describing findings from a simulation study and an empirical study of multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) data. Geiser and colleagues raised concerns with (a) our use of the term bias, (b) our statement that the correlated trait–correlated method minus one [CT–C(M–1)] model is not in line with Campbell and Fiske’s (1959) conceptualization of MTMM data, (c) our selection of a data-generating model for our simulation study, and (d) our preference for the correlated trait–correlated method (CT–CM) model over the CT–C(M–1) model. Here, we respond to and elaborate on issues raised by Geiser et al. We maintain our position on each of these issues and point to the interpretational challenges of the CT–C(M–1) model. But, we clarify our opinion that none of the existing structural models for MTMM data are flawless; each has its strengths and each has its weaknesses. We further remind readers of the goal, findings, and implications of our recently published article.",
keywords = "construct validity, CT-C(M-1) model, CT-CM model, multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) analysis, structural equation modeling",
author = "Laura Castro-Schilo and Widaman, {Keith F.} and Kevin Grimm",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/10705511.2014.919818",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "524--533",
journal = "Structural Equation Modeling",
issn = "1070-5511",
publisher = "Psychology Press Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Toward Improving the Modeling of MTMM Data

T2 - A Response to Geiser, Koch, and Eid (2014)

AU - Castro-Schilo, Laura

AU - Widaman, Keith F.

AU - Grimm, Kevin

PY - 2014/10/2

Y1 - 2014/10/2

N2 - Geiser, Koch, and Eid (2014) expressed their views on an article we published describing findings from a simulation study and an empirical study of multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) data. Geiser and colleagues raised concerns with (a) our use of the term bias, (b) our statement that the correlated trait–correlated method minus one [CT–C(M–1)] model is not in line with Campbell and Fiske’s (1959) conceptualization of MTMM data, (c) our selection of a data-generating model for our simulation study, and (d) our preference for the correlated trait–correlated method (CT–CM) model over the CT–C(M–1) model. Here, we respond to and elaborate on issues raised by Geiser et al. We maintain our position on each of these issues and point to the interpretational challenges of the CT–C(M–1) model. But, we clarify our opinion that none of the existing structural models for MTMM data are flawless; each has its strengths and each has its weaknesses. We further remind readers of the goal, findings, and implications of our recently published article.

AB - Geiser, Koch, and Eid (2014) expressed their views on an article we published describing findings from a simulation study and an empirical study of multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) data. Geiser and colleagues raised concerns with (a) our use of the term bias, (b) our statement that the correlated trait–correlated method minus one [CT–C(M–1)] model is not in line with Campbell and Fiske’s (1959) conceptualization of MTMM data, (c) our selection of a data-generating model for our simulation study, and (d) our preference for the correlated trait–correlated method (CT–CM) model over the CT–C(M–1) model. Here, we respond to and elaborate on issues raised by Geiser et al. We maintain our position on each of these issues and point to the interpretational challenges of the CT–C(M–1) model. But, we clarify our opinion that none of the existing structural models for MTMM data are flawless; each has its strengths and each has its weaknesses. We further remind readers of the goal, findings, and implications of our recently published article.

KW - construct validity

KW - CT-C(M-1) model

KW - CT-CM model

KW - multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) analysis

KW - structural equation modeling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927511870&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84927511870&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10705511.2014.919818

DO - 10.1080/10705511.2014.919818

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84927511870

VL - 21

SP - 524

EP - 533

JO - Structural Equation Modeling

JF - Structural Equation Modeling

SN - 1070-5511

IS - 4

ER -