Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.): Foundations and Extensions

By D. Kaplan. 2009

324 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Human Factors and Ergonomics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b01a5ed3091ceba27277f1a2019e843ef61ac96

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

In Human Factors and Ergonomics

Citations in the corpus

The role of relational uncertainty in depressive symptoms and relationship quality (2010, unknown): “Models 2 and 3: Depressive symptoms, relational uncertainty, and relationship quality We evaluated the remaining hypotheses in four steps (following Kaplan, 2009; Preacher & Hayes, 2008).”
Testing Measurement Invariance Using MIMIC (2012, methodology): “For measurement invariance testing across groups, the MIMIC model includes dummy-coded grouping variables (Xi) as causal indicators (Kaplan, 2009; Thompson & Green, 2006).”
Can Tourists Experience Emotional Solidarity with Residents? Testing Durkheim’s Model from a New Perspective (2013, methodology): “According to Kaplan (2009), incremental model fit indices (e.g., CFI, NFI, GFI, NNFI) should exceed 0.95 to be considered acceptable.”
Testing Factorial Invariance in Multilevel Data: A Monte Carlo Study (2012, methodology): “…the development of multilevel models, researchers often disaggregated a hierarchical data structure and analyzed the data at an individual level or aggregated the data at a higher level and focused solely on the organizational units (Heck & Thomas, 2009; Kaplan, 2009; Snijders & Bosker, 1999).”
Assessing Model Fit: Caveats and Recommendations for Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (2015, background): “Several authors (e.g., Kaplan, 2009) have referred to such respecification as atheoretical, claiming that it is merely capitalizing on chance within a sample.”
Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling in the Journal of Advertising: Review and Recommendations (2017, background): “Other sources provide a more complete description of these assumptions (see Kaplan 2009; Kline 2015; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff 2011; McDonald and Moon-Ho 2002).”
Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares (2016, methodology): “The results of simulation studies have indicated the relative superiority of WLSMV over WLS in the analysis of measurement models with ordinal indicators (Flora & Curran, 2004; Kaplan, 2009; Muthén, 1993; Muthén et al., 1997).”
Testing Negative Error Variances (2012, background): “126 Sociological Methods & Research 41(1) We assume that the readers are familiar with the basics of SEM, as presented in Bollen (1989), Jöreskog (1978), Kaplan (2009), Kline (2005), Mulaik (2009), Raykov and Marcoulides (2006), and similar textbooks.”
Why Students Choose STEM Majors (2013, methodology): “…SEM analysis by estimating the residual covariance between these two variables.4 Wang The analyses were conducted using Mplus 6.1, a statistical software package capable of SEM analysis that uses a mixture of different types of variables (Kaplan, 2009; Kupek, 2006; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010).”
Current Methodological Considerations in Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (2011, methodology): “But along with PCA, PAF does not require data distributional assumptions and is, therefore, a nonstatistical estimation method (Kaplan, 2009).”
Using Emotional Solidarity to Explain Residents’ Attitudes about Tourism and Tourism Development (2012, methodology): “As indicated earlier, Kaplan (2009) suggests that incremental model fit indices (e.g., CFI, NFI, and GFI) should have values greater than 0.950 to be considered very good; however, Hu and Bentler (1999) claim that values of at least 0.900 may indicate reasonably good fit of the model to the data.”
Comparing Residents’ and Tourists’ Emotional Solidarity with One Another (2011, background): “Kaplan (2009) claims a more conservative rule of thumb to be .95 for a good fit to exist.”
Social Discrimination in the Corporate Elite (2013, methodology): “The results were also robust to using factor scores derived from the principal factor method and the iterated principal factor method (Kaplan, 2009). answered these questions separately for each journalist with whom they had communicated during the period for which internal performance attributions…”