Search

This study examined the false positive rates and sensitivity of structural fit indexes to structural misspecification in SEM. The impact of sample size, model size, the magnitude of standardized factor loadings, and misspecified path effect on the fit indexes was also investigated. The structural fit indexes examined in this study included RMSEA-P, C9, C10 recommended by Lance et al., and C9S, C10S, RMSEAS, and CFIS proposed by McNeish and Hancock. The results in the present study showed that the false positive rates of C9S and C10S were high when the sample size was small or when factor loadings were low, although their sensitivity was negligibly impacted by the size of factor loadings. The higher sensitivity of RSMEA-P, C9, and C10 was observed in conditions with more observed items with higher factor loadings. Empirical implications for applied researchers were discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fit indexes are an important tool in the evaluation of model fit in structural equation modeling (SEM). Currently, the newest confidence interval (CI) for fit indexes proposed by Zhang and Savalei (2016) is based on the quantiles of a bootstrap sampling distribution at a single level of misspecification. This method, despite a great improvement over naive and model-based bootstrap methods, still suffers from unsatisfactory coverage. In this work, we propose a new method of constructing bootstrap CIs for various fit indexes. This method directly inverts a bootstrap test and produces a CI that involves levels of misspecification that would not be rejected in a bootstrap test. Similar in rationale to a parametric CI of root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) based on a noncentralχ2 distribution and a profile-likelihood CI of model parameters, this approach is shown to have better performance than the approach of Zhang and Savalei (2016), with more accurate coverage and more efficient widths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Longitudinal data are often collected in waves in which a participant’s data can be collected at different times within each wave, resulting in sampling-time variation that is unaccounted for when waves are treated as single time points. Little research has been reported on the effects of this temporal imprecision on longitudinal growth-curve modeling. This article describes the results of a simulation study into the effect of sampling-time variation on parameter estimation, model fit, and model comparison with an empirical validation of the model fit and comparison results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Structural equation models are typically evaluated on the basis of goodness-of-fit indexes. Despite their popularity, agreeing what value these indexes should attain to confidently decide between the acceptance and rejection of a model has been greatly debated. A recently proposed approach by means of equivalence testing has been recommended as a superior way to evaluate the goodness of fit of models. The approach has also been proposed as providing a necessary vehicle that can be used to advance the inferential nature of structural equation modeling as a confirmatory tool. The purpose of this article is to introduce readers to key ideas in equivalence testing and illustrate its use for conducting model–data fit assessments. Two confirmatory factor analysis models in which a priori specified latent variable models with known structure and tested against data are used as examples. It is advocated that whenever the goodness of fit of a model is to be assessed researchers should always examine the resulting values obtained via the equivalence testing approach. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Bootstrapping approximate fit indexes in structural equation modeling (SEM) is of great importance because most fit indexes do not have tractable analytic distributions. Model-based bootstrap, which has been proposed to obtain the distribution of the model chi-square statistic under the null hypothesis (Bollen & Stine, 1992), is not theoretically appropriate for obtaining confidence intervals (CIs) for fit indexes because it assumes the null is exactly true. On the other hand, naive bootstrap is not expected to work well for those fit indexes that are based on the chi-square statistic, such as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI), because sample noncentrality is a biased estimate of the population noncentrality. In this article we argue that a recently proposed bootstrap approach due to Yuan, Hayashi, and Yanagihara (YHY; 2007) is ideal for bootstrapping fit indexes that are based on the chi-square. This method transforms the data so that the “parent” population has the population noncentrality parameter equal to the estimated noncentrality in the original sample. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the performance of the YHY bootstrap and the naive bootstrap for 4 indexes: RMSEA, CFI, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). We found that for RMSEA and CFI, the CIs under the YHY bootstrap had relatively good coverage rates for all conditions, whereas the CIs under the naive bootstrap had very low coverage rates when the fitted model had large degrees of freedom. However, for GFI and SRMR, the CIs under both bootstrap methods had poor coverage rates in most conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This simulation study investigated the sensitivity of commonly used cutoff values for global-model-fit indexes, with regard to different degrees of violations of the assumption of uncorrelated errors in confirmatory factor analysis. It is shown that the global-model-fit indexes fell short in identifying weak to strong model misspecifications under both different degrees of correlated error terms, and various simulation conditions. On the basis of an example misspecification search, it is argued that global model testing must be supplemented by this procedure. Implications for the use of structural equation modeling are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study is a partial replication of L. Hu and P. M. Bentler's (1999) fit criteria work. The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to determine whether cut-off values vary according to which model is the true population model for a dataset and (b) to identify which of 13 fit indexes behave optimally by retaining all of the correct models while simultaneously rejecting all of the misspecified models in a manner invariant across sample size and data distribution. The authors found that for most indexes the results do not vary depending on which model serves as the correct model. Furthermore, the search for an optimal cut-off value led to a new discovery about the nature of McDonald's measure of centrality and the root mean square error of approximation. Unlike all other indexes considered in this study, the cut-off value of both indexes actually decreases for incorrect models as sample size increases. This may suggest that power calculations are more likely to be optimal when based on those indices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]