Structural equation models are modelling tools with many ambiguities: Comments acknowledging the need for caution and humility in their use
- 10 April 2010
- journal article
- method dialogue
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Consumer Psychology
- Vol. 20 (2) , 208-214
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.03.001
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural equations modeling) but were afraid to askPublished by Wiley ,2009
- Structural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced topicsJournal of Consumer Psychology, 2009
- On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: Comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007).Psychological Methods, 2007
- Sensitivity of Fit Indexes to Misspecified Structural or Measurement Model Components: Rationale of Two-Index Strategy RevisitedStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2005
- 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) FindingsStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2004
- A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer ResearchJournal of Consumer Research, 2003
- Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternativesStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1999
- Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.Psychological Methods, 1998
- On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: Two extensionsInternational Journal of Research in Marketing, 1991
- A Prospectus for Theory Construction in MarketingJournal of Marketing, 1984