Revisiting the Impact of Measurement Quality on Targeted Structural Model Fit Indexes in Structural Equation Modeling

被引:2
作者
Cao, Chunhua [1 ,2 ]
Man, Kaiwen [1 ]
Ge, Yuan [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 USA
[2] Univ Alabama, Dept Educ Studies Psychol Res Methodol & Counselin, Educ Res, 520 Colonial Dr, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 USA
关键词
Fit indexes; measurement quality; sensitivity; structural equation modeling; structural misspecification; NUMBER; INDICATORS;
D O I
10.1080/10705511.2022.2139262
中图分类号
O1 [数学];
学科分类号
0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
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 C9(S), C10(S), RMSEA(S), and CFIS proposed by McNeish and Hancock. The results in the present study showed that the false positive rates of C9(S) and C10(S) 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.
引用
收藏
页码:458 / 466
页数:9
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE - A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED 2-STEP APPROACH [J].
ANDERSON, JC ;
GERBING, DW .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1988, 103 (03) :411-423
[2]   Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit [J].
Barrett, Paul .
PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2007, 42 (05) :815-824
[3]  
Bentler P.M., 1989, EQS Structural Equations Program Manual
[4]  
Bentler P.M., 1995, EQS structural equations program manual
[5]  
Bollen K.A., 1989, Structural Equations with Latent Variables
[6]  
Breivik E., 2001, Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future: A Festschrift in Honour of Karl Joreskog, P169
[7]   ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF ASSESSING MODEL FIT [J].
BROWNE, MW ;
CUDECK, R .
SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH, 1992, 21 (02) :230-258
[8]   Fit for a Bayesian: An Evaluation of PPP and DIC for Structural Equation Modeling [J].
Cain, Meghan K. ;
Zhang, Zhiyong .
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL, 2019, 26 (01) :39-50
[9]   Effects of Estimation Methods, Number of Indicators per Factor, and Improper Solutions on Structural Equation Modeling Fit Indices [J].
Ding, Lin ;
Velicer, Wayne F. ;
Harlow, Lisa L. .
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL, 1995, 2 (02) :119-143
[10]   Adapting Fit Indices for Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling: Comparison to Maximum Likelihood [J].
Garnier-Villarreal, Mauricio ;
Jorgensen, Terrence D. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2020, 25 (01) :46-70