Note. Fear, anger, sadness: Trait factors. Method factors are denoted by SR (self-report), FR (friend report), AR (acquaintance report). Covariances are depicted in the upper (right) triangular, variances appear in the main diagonal, and correlations are presented in the lower right portion of the table. Empty cells indicate nonadmissible covariances or correlations. Parameters that differ significantly from 0 (a = .05) appear in boldface type.

traits. These differences in correlations, however, were not visible in a simple manner but had to be inferred from the loading patterns.

The situation was quite different for the CTC(M-1) model. The consistency coefficients of the self-reports were perfect because the self-reports had been taken as the comparison standard. The consistency coefficients were rather low, and the method specificity coefficients were very high for the peer ratings. This finding means that both the friend and acquaintance ratings were rather weakly associated with the self-ratings. The standardized loading parameters and the consistency coefficients were higher for the friend ratings than the acquaintance ratings, particularly for fear and sadness. However, the differences in the consistency and method specificity coefficients between the friend and acquaintance ratings were not very large and not significant. This was tested by comparing the model in Figure 20.3c with a model in which (a) the trait factor loadings of the friend ratings are set equal to the factor loadings of the acquaintance ratings, and (b) the variance of a trait-specific method factor for a friend rating was set equal to the variance of the corresponding method factor of the acquaintance rating. The method factor loadings were equal between the friend and acquaintances ratings because they had already been set to 1 for the assumption of homogeneous indicators. In this restricted model, the consistency and specificity coefficients have to be equal for the friend and acquaintance ratings. Although this model is more restrictive than the model in Figure 20.3c, it did not fit the data significantly worse than the unrestricted model (X2= 125.95, df = 126, p = .48, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA < .01), demonstrating that the friend ratings were not more closely linked to the self-ratings than the acquaintance ratings ( %2 -difference test: X2 = 2.87, df = 6, p = .82).

Generalizability of method effects. In the CTCU and the CTC(M-l) models, the correlations of the method factors belonging to the same method indicated that method effects generalized across methods because the correlations were relatively large. However, the correlations were different from 1, indicating that the strong assumption of perfect generalizability of method effects across traits that is inherent in the single-indicator variants of these models had to be rejected. This was revealed by a statistical comparison of the models in Figure 20.3 with corresponding models in which there is only one method factor for each method. These models had to be rejected for both the CTUM and the CTC(M-l) model.

Correlations between methods. As in the single-indicator variant, the method factors are uncorre-lated between methods in the multiple-indicator

CTCU model. This, however, must not be misinterpreted in the sense that methods are not differentially related to each other. To a certain degree, differential associations between methods can be captured by the different trait factor loadings. In the CTC(M-l) model these differences are represented by the correlations between the method factors of the two other rater groups. The significant correlations between the method factors of the friend raters and the method factors of the acquaintance raters indicate that the peer raters share a common view of the person that is not shared with the person her- or himself.

Was this article helpful?

## Post a comment