Composite reliability, or coefficient omega, can be estimated using structural equation modeling. Composite reliability is usually estimated under the basic independent clusters model of confirmatory factor analysis (ICM-CFA). However, due to the existence of cross-loadings, the model fit of the exploratory structural equation model (ESEM) is often found to be substantially better than that of ICM-CFA. The present study first illustrated the method used to estimate composite reliability under ESEM and then compared the difference between ESEM and ICM-CFA in terms of composite reliability estimation under various indicators per factor, target factor loadings, cross-loadings, and sample sizes. The results showed no apparent difference in using ESEM or ICM-CFA for estimating composite reliability, and the rotation type did not affect the composite reliability estimates generated by ESEM. An empirical example was given as further proof of the results of the simulation studies. Based on the present study, we suggest that if the model fit of ESEM (regardless of the utilized rotation criteria) is acceptable but that of ICM-CFA is not, the composite reliability estimates based on the above two models should be similar. If the target factor loadings are relatively small, researchers should increase the number of indicators per factor or increase the sample size.

可以使用结构方程建模来估计复合可靠性或系数 omega。综合可靠性通常在验证性因素分析（ICM-CFA）的基本独立聚类模型下进行估计。然而，由于交叉载荷的存在，探索性结构方程模型 (ESEM) 的模型拟合通常明显优于 ICM-CFA。本研究首先阐述了ESEM下用于估计复合可靠性的方法，然后比较了ESEM和ICM-CFA在每个因素的各种指标、目标因素载荷、交叉载荷和样本量下的复合可靠性估计的差异。结果表明，使用 ESEM 或 ICM-CFA 估计复合可靠性没有明显差异，旋转类型不影响 ESEM 生成的综合可靠性估计。给出了一个实证例子作为对模拟研究结果的进一步证明。根据目前的研究，我们建议，如果 ESEM 的模型拟合（无论使用的旋转标准如何）是可以接受的，而 ICM-CFA 的模型拟合是不可接受的，则基于上述两个模型的综合可靠性估计应该是相似的。如果目标因子载荷相对较小，研究人员应增加每个因子的指标数量或增加样本量。基于上述两个模型的综合可靠性估计应该是相似的。如果目标因子载荷相对较小，研究人员应增加每个因子的指标数量或增加样本量。基于上述两个模型的综合可靠性估计应该是相似的。如果目标因子载荷相对较小，研究人员应增加每个因子的指标数量或增加样本量。