COMMENTARY Evaluating the MSCEIT V2.0 via CFA: Comment on Mayer et al. (2003)

This investigation uncovered several substantial errors in the confirmatory factor analysis results reported byJ. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, D. R. Caruso, and G. Sitarenios (2003). Specifically, the values associated with theclose-fit indices (normed fit index, Tucker–Lewis Index, and root-mean-square error of approximation) areinaccurate. A reanalysis of the Mayer et al. subscale intercorrelation matrix provided accurate values of theclose-fit indices, which resulted in different evaluations of the models tested by J. D. Mayer et al. Contraryto J. D. Mayer et al., the 1-factor model and the 2-factor model did not provide good fit. Although the 4-factormodel was still considered good fitting, the nonconstrained 4-factor model yielded a nonpositive definitematrix, which was interpreted to be due to the fact that two of the branch-level factors (Perceiving andFacilitating) were collinear, suggesting that a model with 4 factors was implausible.Keywords: MSCEIT, factor structure, CFA