This article examines the adequacy of the “rules of thumb” conventional cutoff criteria and several new alternatives for various fit indexes used to evaluate model fit in practice. Using a 2‐index presentation strategy, which includes using the maximum likelihood (ML)‐based standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) and supplementing it with either Tucker‐Lewis Index (TLI), Bollen's (1989) Fit Index (BL89), Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Gamma Hat, McDonald's Centrality Index (Mc), or root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), various combinations of cutoff values from selected ranges of cutoff criteria for the ML‐based SRMR and a given supplemental fit index were used to calculate rejection rates for various types of true‐population and misspecified models; that is, models with misspecified factor covariance(s) and models with misspecified factor loading(s). The results suggest that, for the ML method, a cutoff value close to .95 for TLI, BL89, CFI, RNI, and G...

Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives

Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.

/pdf/common-method-biases-in-behavioral-research-a-critical-53ocysaemj.pdf

Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Normed and nonnormed fit indexes are frequently used as adjuncts to chi-square statistics for evaluating the fit of a structural model A drawback of existing indexes is that they estimate no known population parameters A new coefficient is proposed to summarize the relative reduction in the noncentrality parameters of two nested models Two estimators of the coefficient yield new normed (CFI) and nonnormed (FI) fit indexes CFI avoids the underestimation of fit often noted in small samples for Bentler and Bonett's (1980) normed fit index (NFI) FI is a linear function of Bentler and Bonett's non-normed fit index (NNFI) that avoids the extreme underestimation and overestimation often found in NNFI Asymptotically, CFI, FI, NFI, and a new index developed by Bollen are equivalent measures of comparative fit, whereas NNFI measures relative fit by comparing noncentrality per degree of freedom All of the indexes are generalized to permit use of Wald and Lagrange multiplier statistics An example illustrates the behavior of these indexes under conditions of correct specification and misspecification The new fit indexes perform very well at all sample sizes

Comparative fit indexes in structural models

자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

Measurement invariance is usually tested using Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis, which examines the change in the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) when cross-group constraints are imposed on a measurement model. Although many studies have examined the properties of GFI as indicators of overall model fit for single-group data, there have been none to date that examine how GFIs change when between-group constraints are added to a measurement model. The lack of a consensus about what constitutes significant GFI differences places limits on measurement invariance testing. We examine 20 GFIs based on the minimum fit function. A simulation under the two-group situation was used to examine changes in the GFIs (ΔGFIs) when invariance constraints were added. Based on the results, we recommend using Δcomparative fit index, ΔGamma hat, and ΔMcDonald's Noncentrality Index to evaluate measurement invariance. These three ΔGFIs are independent of both model complexity and sample size, and are not correlated with the o...

Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance

Goodness-of-fit (GOF) indexes provide "rules of thumb"—recommended cutoff values for assessing fit in structural equation modeling. Hu and Bentler (1999) proposed a more rigorous approach to evaluating decision rules based on GOF indexes and, on this basis, proposed new and more stringent cutoff values for many indexes. This article discusses potential problems underlying the hypothesis-testing rationale of their research, which is more appropriate to testing statistical significance than evaluating GOF. Many of their misspecified models resulted in a fit that should have been deemed acceptable according to even their new, more demanding criteria. Hence, rejection of these acceptable-misspecified models should have constituted a Type 1 error (incorrect rejection of an "acceptable" model), leading to the seemingly paradoxical results whereby the probability of correctly rejecting misspecified models decreased substantially with increasing N. In contrast to the application of cutoff values to evaluate each ...

In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) Findings

This investigation examined the influence of sample size on different goodness-of-fit indices used in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The first two data sets were derived from large normative samples of responses to a multidimensional self-concept instrument and to a multidimensional instrument used to assess students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness. In the third set, data were simulated and generated according to the model to be tested. In the fourth, data were simulated and generated according to a three-factor model that did not have a simple structure. Twelve fit indicators were used to assess goodness-offit in all CFAs. All analyses were conducted with the LISREL V package. One-way ANOVAs and a visual inspection of graphs were used to assess the sample size effect on each index for the four data sets. Despite the inconsistency of the findings with previous claims, the results are consistent with the observation that the amount of random, unexplained variance varies inversely with sample size. Appendices include a set of computed statements, an explanation and listing of the 12 goodness-of-fit indicators, a bibliography, a table of results, and figures showing sample size effect. (Author/LMO) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ***********************************************************************

/pdf/goodness-of-fit-indexes-in-confirmatory-factor-analysis-the-2470twpiyo.pdf

Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis : The effect of sample size

Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups.

It is suggested that Akaike's information criterion cannot be used for model selection in real applications and that there are problems attending the definition of parsimonious fit indices. A normed function of the noncentrality parameter is recommended as an unbiased absolute goodness-of-fit index, and the Tucker-Lewis index and a new unbiased counterpart of the Bentler-Bonett index are recommended for those investigators who might wish to evaluate fit relative to a null model

Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit.

The construct, self-concept, has been evoked to explain overt behavior across a wide spectrum of situations, and the attainment of a positive self-concept has been posited as a desirable goal in personality and child development, in clinical treatments, and in education. Its importance notwithstanding, research and evaluations using self-concept have suffered from imprecise theoretical formulation of the construct and inadequate measurement instruments. In an attempt to remedy this situation, Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) posited a multifaceted, hierarchical self-concept with facets becoming more distinct with age, and set forth criteria for evaluating adequate instrumentation. This paper brings together recent research on this model and instrumentation. Each of these hypotheses is supported, though the structure appears to be more complicated than originally proposed and the facets are so distinct by late adolescence that the hierarchy is necessarily very weak. Further empirical research and theo...

Herbert W. Marsh

Papers

In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) Findings

Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis : The effect of sample size

Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups.

Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit.

Self-Concept: Its Multifaceted, Hierarchical Structure