correlation model (Figure 20.3a) with equal loadings (%2= 109.99, df = 108, p = .43, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .01). The parameters (loadings, latent correlations) of the MTMM correlation model are not presented because their interpretation is straightforward. The loading parameters as well as the coefficients of reliability, consistency, and method specificity of the CTCU and CTC(M-l) model are reported in Table 20.4. Table 20.5 and 20.6 show the correlations between the trait and method factors. First, the reliabilities (variance explained by the trait and method factors) were generally higher than the reliabilities in the single-indicator models. The reliabilities of the different indicators did not differ as much as in the single-indicator models. Moreover, the reliabilities were of reasonable sizes given that each indicator (test half)
consists of only two items. This shows that the reliabilities can be more appropriately estimated in multiple-indicator models. The consistency and method specificity coefficients are estimated as proportions of variance of the true variance (observed variance minus error variance). In the CTCU model, the consistency and method specificity coefficients differed greatly within and between the three methods. For two traits (fear, sadness), the friend ratings showed the highest consistency and lowest specificity coefficients. According to this criterion, the friend ratings were the "best" methods (highest correlations with the trait). For anger, however, the consistency coefficients of friend ratings were the lowest. These differences in the consistency coefficients indicated differences in the correlations of the three methods between the three
Was this article helpful?