On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA

This simulation study compared maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with weighted least squares means and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation. The study was based on confirmatory factor analyses with 1, 2, 4, and 8 factors, based on 250, 500, 750, and 1,000 cases, and on 5, 10, 20, and 40 variables with 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 categories. There was no model misspecification. The most important results were that with 2 and 3 categories the rejection rates of the WLSMV chi-square test corresponded much more to the expected rejection rates according to an alpha level of .05 than the rejection rates of the ML chi-square test. The magnitude of the loadings was more precisely estimated by means of WLSMV when the variables had only 2 or 3 categories. The sample size for WLSMV estimation needed not to be larger than the sample size for ML estimation.