The Thorny Relation Between Measurement Quality and Fit Index Cutoffs in Latent Variable Models

被引:263
作者
McNeish, Daniel [1 ]
An, Ji [1 ]
Hancock, Gregory R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Human Dev & Quantitat Methodol Dept, College Pk, MD 20742 USA
关键词
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR-ANALYSIS; EQUATION; MISSPECIFICATION; CONSEQUENCES; SENSITIVITY; LIMITATIONS; VALUES; PLACE; SCALE; RMSEA;
D O I
10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Latent variable modeling is a popular and flexible statistical framework. Concomitant with fitting latent variable models is assessment of how well the theoretical model fits the observed data. Although firm cutoffs for these fit indexes are often cited, recent statistical proofs and simulations have shown that these fit indexes are highly susceptible to measurement quality. For instance, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value of 0.06 (conventionally thought to indicate good fit) can actually indicate poor fit with poor measurement quality (e.g., standardized factors loadings of around 0.40). Conversely, an RMSEA value of 0.20 (conventionally thought to indicate very poor fit) can indicate acceptable fit with very high measurement quality (standardized factor loadings around 0.90). Despite the wide-ranging effect on applications of latent variable models, the high level of technical detail involved with this phenomenon has curtailed the exposure of these important findings to empirical researchers who are employing these methods. This article briefly reviews these methodological studies in minimal technical detail and provides a demonstration to easily quantify the large influence measurement quality has on fit index values and how greatly the cutoffs would change if they were derived under an alternative level of measurement quality. Recommendations for best practice are also discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:43 / 52
页数:10
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]   Examining the Factor Structure and Structural Invariance of the PANAS Across Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults [J].
Allan, Nicholas P. ;
Lonigan, Christopher J. ;
Phillips, Beth M. .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 2015, 97 (06) :616-625
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2001, Structural Equation Modeling: Present and FutureA Festschrift in honor of Karl Jreskog, DOI DOI 10.12691/EDUCATION-3-1-10
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1980, ANN M PSYCH SOC IOW
[4]   On making causal claims: A review and recommendations [J].
Antonakis, John ;
Bendahan, Samuel ;
Jacquart, Philippe ;
Lalive, Rafael .
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY, 2010, 21 (06) :1086-1120
[5]   Addressing Psychometric Limitations of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Through Item Modification [J].
Bardeen, Joseph R. ;
Fergus, Thomas A. ;
Hannan, Susan M. ;
Orcutt, Holly K. .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 2016, 98 (03) :298-309
[6]   Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit [J].
Barrett, Paul .
PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2007, 42 (05) :815-824
[7]   Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with slierhtly distorted simple structure [J].
Beauducel, A ;
Wittmann, WW .
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL, 2005, 12 (01) :41-75
[8]   On tests and indices for evaluating structural models [J].
Bentler, Peter M. .
PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2007, 42 (05) :825-829
[9]  
BENTLER PM, 1990, PSYCHOL BULL, V107, P238, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
[10]   When fit indices and residuals are incompatible [J].
Browne, MW ;
MacCallum, RC ;
Kim, CT ;
Andersen, BL ;
Glaser, R .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2002, 7 (04) :403-421