Ten commandments of structural equation modeling.

By B. Thompson. 2000

437 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/237db4a6e7ff8ab11ce2676d5c4fb08aa87424c6

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Measuring Job-Related Situational Strength and Assessing Its Interactive Effects With Personality on Voluntary Work Behavior (2014, methodology): “The one-factor model is a standard comparison suggested by Thompson (2000).”
A Cross-Cultural Study of Environmental Motive Concerns and Their Implications for Proenvironmental Behavior (2006, background): “As numerous fit statistics consider different aspects of fit, multiple fit statistics should be used in structural equation models studies to assess the degree to which the data fit the model (Thompson, 2000).”
Consequences of Not Interpreting Structure Coefficients in Published CFA Research: A Reminder (2003, methodology): “It has been suggested that even in an SEM context an initial phase of analysis often should include an examination via CFA of the measurement models that will later be examined as reflecting constructs related within the structural model (cf. Thompson, 2000).”
TOURISTS' EVALUATIONS OF DESTINATION IMAGE, SATISFACTION, AND FUTURE BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS—THE CASE OF MAURITIUS (2009, background): “Three items (value for money, beaches and watersports, and weather and climate) of the third factor had to be deleted given that the average variance extracted was below the .5 recommended (Thompson, 2000).”
Queensland teachers’ conceptions of assessment: The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes (2011, unknown): “Confirmatory factor analysis tests the fit of this model to the data (Klem, 2000; Hoyle, 1995; Thompson, 2000).”
Matrix Summaries Improve Research Reports: Secondary Analyses Using Published Literature (2009, methodology): “Therefore, we conducted a CCA (see Thompson, 1984, 2000a) between the variable sets of (a) five teacher beliefs/ behaviors and (b) four student goals and interests outcomes.”
Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (2002, background): “Although there is some dispute regarding the criteria for acceptable model fit and the behavior of fit indexes under various conditions (Thompson, 2000), it is generally accepted that values greater than .”
High School‐Aged Youths' Attitudes Toward their Peers with Disabilities: the role of school and student interpersonal Factors (2004, background): “The GFI and the AGFI express the relative amount of the population variance/covariance matrix that is accounted for by the model (Thompson, 2000).”
Direct and Indirect Effects of Internal Control Weaknesses on Accrual Quality: Evidence from a Unique Canadian Regulatory Setting (2011, unknown): “CAR Vol. 28 No. 2 (Summer 2011) approaching 0 with either 0.05 or 0.08 being the benchmark of a good fit, and a nonsignificant v2 test result (Chau 1997; Thompson 2000; Garson 2009).16 We also report the incremental fit index (IFI) and from our asymptotic tests the original goodness of fit (GFI) and”
Assessment for student improvement: understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment (2009, background): “Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tests the degree to which data fit a model in which theoretically determined paths between variables are specified and in which all other paths are set to zero (Klem 2000; Thompson 2000).”
Job involvement, commitment, satisfaction and turnover: Evidence from hotel employees in Cyprus (2014, background): “It is important to note that the ratio between the sample size and the number of observed variables in the hypothesized model, a priori criterion for the Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation, is higher than 10 to 1 which according to Thompson (2000) is ideal for such an analysis.”