Issues in applied structural equation modeling research
- 1 January 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
- Vol. 2 (4) , 289-318
- https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519509540017
Abstract
When using the popular structural equation modeling (SEM) methodology, the issues of sample size, method of parameter estimation, assessment of model fit, and capitalization on chance are of great importance in the process of evaluating the results of an empirical study. We focus first on implications of the large‐sample theory underlying applications of the methodology. The utility for applied contexts of the asymptotically distribution‐free parameter estimation and model testing method is discussed next. We then argue for wider use of a recently developed, non conventional model‐fit assessment strategy in SEM. We conclude by discussing the issue of capitalization on chance, primarily in situations in which exploratory and confirmatory analyses are conducted on the same data set.This publication has 44 references indexed in Scilit:
- Goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effects of sample size and model parsimonyQuality & Quantity, 1994
- Effect of Estimation Method on Incremental Fit Indexes for Covariance Structure ModelsApplied Psychological Measurement, 1993
- Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted?Psychological Bulletin, 1992
- Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance.Psychological Bulletin, 1992
- An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentralityJournal of Classification, 1989
- Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.Psychological Bulletin, 1988
- Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size.Psychological Bulletin, 1988
- "How Big Is Big Enough?": Sample Size and Goodness of Fit in Structural Equation Models with Latent VariablesChild Development, 1987
- Comments on Professor Freedman's PaperJournal of Educational Statistics, 1987