Toward a Causal Interpretation of the Common Factor Model

Open access


Psychological constructs such as personality dimensions or cognitive traits are typically unobserved and are therefore measured by observing so-called indicators of the latent construct (e.g., responses to questionnaire items or observed behavior). The Common Factor Model (CFM) models the relations between the observed indicators and the latent variable. In this article we argue in favor of interpreting the CFM as a causal model rather than merely a statistical model, in which common factors are only descriptions of the indicators. When there is sufficient reason to hypothesize that the underlying causal structure of the data is a common cause structure, a causal interpretation of the CFM has several benefits over a merely statistical interpretation of the model. We argue that (1) a causal interpretation conforms with most research questions in which the goal is to explain the correlations between indicators rather than merely summarizing them; (2) a causal interpretation of the factor model legitimizes the focus on shared, rather than unique variance of the indicators; and (3) a causal interpretation of the factor model legitimizes the assumption of local independence.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Asmundson Gordon. J.G.; Frombach Inge; McQuaid John; Pedrelli Paulo; Lenox Rebecca; and Stein Murray B. 2000. Dimensionality of posttraumatic stress symptoms: a confirmatory factor analysis of DSM-IV symptom clusters and other symptom models. Behaviour Research and Therapy 38: 203–14.

  • Bollen Kenneth. A. 2002. Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 605–34.

  • Bollen Kenneth. A. 2011. Evaluating effect composite and causal indicators in structural equation models. MIS Quarterly 35: 359–72.

  • Bollen Kenneth; and Lennox Richard. 1991. Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin 110: 305–14.

  • Bollen Kenneth A.; and Ting Kwok-Fai. 1993. Confirmatory tetrad analysis. Sociological Methodology 23: 147–75.

  • Borsboom Denny; Mellenbergh Gideon. J.; and van Heerden Jaap. 2003. The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review 110: 203–19.

  • Borsboom Denny; Mellenbergh Gideon. J.; and van Heerden Jaap. 2004. The concept of validity. Psychological Review 111: 1061–71.

  • Caspi Avshalom; Houts Renate. M.; Belsky Daniel. W.; Goldman-Mellor Sidra. J.; Harrington HonaLee; Israel Salomon; and Moffitt Terrie. E. 2014. The p factor one general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science 2: 119–37.

  • Diamantopoulos Adamantios; Riefler Petra; and Roth Katharina. P. 2008. Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research 61: 1203–18.

  • Edwards Jeffrey. R.; and Bagozzi Richard. P. 2000. On the nature and direction of relationship constructs and measurement. Psychological Methods 5: 155–74.

  • Frigg Roman; and Hartmann Stephan. 2006. Models in science. In The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia ed. by S. Sarkar and J. Pfeifer 740–9. New York NY: Routledge.

  • Haig Brian. D. 2005. An abductive theory of scientific method. Psychological methods 10:371–88.

  • Haig Brian. D. 2014. Investigating the Psychological World: Scientiic Method in the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • James Gareth; Witten Daniela; Hastie Trevor; and Tibshirani Robert. 2013. An Introduction to Statistical Learning. Vol. 112. New York NY: Springer.

  • Jonas Katherine. G.; and Markon Kristian. E. 2016. A descriptivist approach to trait conceptualization and inference. Psychological Review 123: 90–6.

  • MacCallum Robert. C.; Wegener Duane. T.; Uchino Bert. N.; and Fabrigar Leandre. R. 1993. The problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin 114: 185–99.

  • McCrae Robert. R.; and Costa Paul. T. 1987. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 81–90.

  • McCullagh Peter. 2002. What is a statistical model? The Annals of Statistics 30: 1225–67.

  • Moneta Alessio; and Russo Federica. 2014. Causal models and evidential pluralism in econometrics. Journal of Economic Methodology 21: 54–76.

  • Musek Janek. 2007. A general factor of personality: evidence for the big one in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality 41: 1213–33.

  • Reichenbach Hans. 1956. The Direction of Time. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

  • van der Maas Han. L. J.; Dolan Conor. V.; Grasman Raoul. P.; Wicherts Jelte. M.; Huizenga Hilde. M.; and Raijmakers Maartje. E. 2006. A dynamical model of general intelligence: the positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review 113: 842–61.

  • Spearman Charles. 1904. ‘General Intelligence’ objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology 15: 201–92.

  • van Bork Riet; Rhemtulla Mijke; and Borsboom Denny. 2015. Latent variable and network model implications for partial correlation structures. Presentation for the 80th Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society (IMPS) Beijing July 2015.

  • van Bork Riet; Rhemtulla Mijke; Waldorp Lourens. J.; and Borsboom Denny. 2016. Distinguishing latent variable models and network models. Presentation for the 28th Annual Convention of the Association for Psychological Science (APS) Chicago May 2016.

  • van Fraassen Bas. C. 2008. Scientiic Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.154
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.348

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1148 1095 53
PDF Downloads 818 780 47