This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fan, X. Articles by Wang, L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Effects of Potential Confounding Factors on Fit Indices and Parameter Estimates for True and Misspecified SEM Models

Utah State University, fafan{at}cc.usu.edu

Lin Wang

American College Testing

The present Monte Carlo study assessed the effects of three potential confounding factors on structural equation modeling (SEM) fit indices and parameter estimates: data nonnormality, estimation method, and sample size. The major findings were that (a) relatively mild data nonnormality has little effect on SEM fit indices and parameter estimates; (b) under misspecified models, estimation method (maximum likelihood [ML] vs. generalized least squares [GLS]) has considerable influence on SEM incremental fit indices; and (c) some fit indices are more susceptible to the influence of sample size. Previous findings in the literature that SEM fit indices were consistent under different estimation methods may need to be revisited, because the finding was primarily based on Monte Carlo simulations involving true SEM models. Because SEM researchers rarely are certain whether they have correctly specified their models, it is critical that simulation studies are conducted in the presence of model misspecification, as in the present study.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. K. Knobloch and K. E. Carpenter-Theune Topic Avoidance in Developing Romantic Relationships: Associations with Intimacy and Relational Uncertainty Communication Research, April 1, 2004; 31(2): 173 - 205. [Abstract] [PDF]