Doing the Four-Step Right

By S. Mulaik, R. Millsap. 2000

331 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0a3688971976e5773d1aee7835268798dd960cf2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Rites, Wrongs, and Gold in Model Testing (2000, background): “Rites, Wrongs, and Gold in Model Testing Peter M. Bentler Department of Psychology University of California, Los Angeles Stimulated by the accompanying articles by Hayduk and Glaser (2000), as well as Mulaik and Millsap (2000), issues related to model evaluation are discussed.”
Reporting Analyses of Covariance Structures (2000, unknown): “Hayduk and Glaser (2000) presented a leading article on a much-debated four-step procedure, followed by reflections of Mulaik and Millsap (2000) and other contributors, which make up Volume 7, Number 1, ofStructural Equation Modeling.”
Measurement Equivalence Of 10 Value Types From The Schwartz Value Survey Across 21 Countries (2003, background): “In principle, four items are considered a minimum for testing a single dimension with structural equation models (see Mulaik & Millsap, 2000).”
A Brief Guide to Structural Equation Modeling (2006, background): “Mulaik and Millsap (2000) proposed a four-phase alternative to Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) approach.”
A study of the factorial invariance of the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI): Results from middle and high school students (2010, background): “Statistical criteria of importance were the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) of 0.95 or higher (Mulaik & Millsap, 2000) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993) at or below 0.05.”
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria (2006, background): “…broader question of how to best assess model fit (e.g., Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Fraas & Newman, 1994; Hayduk & Glaser, 2000; Mulaik et al., 1989; Mulaik & Milsap, 2000; Williams & Holahan, 1994), as assessment of model fit still represents a large and controversial area within the current SEM…”
Does Food Quality Really Matter in Restaurants? Its Impact On Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions (2007, methodology): “To test the goodness of fit of the model, the current study examined the chi-square statistics (Mulaik & Millsap, 2000).”
Influences of perceived autonomy support on physical activity within the theory of planned behavior (2007, methodology): “A three-step path analytic procedure was employed to address study hypotheses ( Mulaik & Millsap, 2000 ).”
Assessing unidimensionality: A comparison of Rasch modeling, Parallel analysis, and TETRAD (2007, background): “For example, when Mulaik and Millsap (2000) defended the use of four indicators per factor in their four-step approach for testing a SEM, they praised the tetrad approach for its merits of over-determining the latent variable.”
Perceived autonomy support in physical education and leisure-time physical activity : A cross-cultural evaluation of the trans-contextual model (2005, methodology): “A series of two-step CFA models was conducted as advocated by Mulaik and Millsap (2000) .”