↓ Skip to main content

An Illustration of the Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) Framework on the Passion Scale

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
220 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Illustration of the Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) Framework on the Passion Scale
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01968
Pubmed ID
Authors

István Tóth-Király, Beáta Bõthe, Adrien Rigó, Gábor Orosz

Abstract

While exploratory factor analysis (EFA) provides a more realistic presentation of the data with the allowance of item cross-loadings, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) includes many methodological advances that the former does not. To create a synergy of the two, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) was proposed as an alternative solution, incorporating the advantages of EFA and CFA. The present investigation is thus an illustrative demonstration of the applicability and flexibility of ESEM. To achieve this goal, we compared CFA and ESEM models, then thoroughly tested measurement invariance and differential item functioning through multiple-indicators-multiple-causes (MIMIC) models on the Passion Scale, the only measure of the Dualistic Model of Passion (DMP) which differentiates between harmonious and obsessive forms of passion. Moreover, a hybrid model was also created to overcome the drawbacks of the two methods. Analyses of the first large community sample (N = 7,466; 67.7% females; Mage = 26.01) revealed the superiority of the ESEM model relative to CFA in terms of improved goodness-of-fit and less correlated factors, while at the same time retaining the high definition of the factors. However, this fit was only achieved with the inclusion of three correlated uniquenesses, two of which appeared in previous studies and one of which was specific to the current investigation. These findings were replicated on a second, comprehensive sample (N = 504; 51.8% females; Mage = 39.59). After combining the two samples, complete measurement invariance (factor loadings, item intercepts, item uniquenesses, factor variances-covariances, and latent means) was achieved across gender and partial invariance across age groups and their combination. Only one item intercept was non-invariant across both multigroup and MIMIC approaches, an observation that was further corroborated by the hybrid model. While obsessive passion showed a slight decline in the hybrid model, harmonious passion did not. Overall, the ESEM framework is a viable alternative of CFA that could be used and even extended to address substantially important questions and researchers should systematically compare these two approaches to identify the most suitable one.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 220 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 16%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 9%
Student > Master 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 76 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 66 30%
Social Sciences 31 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 <1%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 86 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2020.
All research outputs
#7,075,239
of 23,142,049 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,270
of 30,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,765
of 331,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#267
of 620 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,142,049 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 620 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.