Evaluating Cutoff Criteria of Model Fit Indices for Latent Variable Models with Binary and Continuous Outcomes

By L. Angeles. 2002

1,600 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7a22ae22553f78582fc61c6cab4567d36998293b

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

Pathways to Occupational Attainment Among Poor Youth of Color (2009, methodology): “In both steps, the WLSMV estimator (weighted least squares with robust standard errors, mean and variance adjusted) was used because of the need to use WLSMV when analyzing both continuous and categorical outcomes (Flora & Curran, 2004; Yu, 2002).”
Author Guidelines for Reporting Scale Development and Validation Results in the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (2010, unknown): “For recommended cut-off scores across a variety of circumstances, authors are referred to Yu (2002).”
Examination of the Weighted Root Mean Square Residual: Evidence for Trustworthiness? (2018, methodology): “Examining correlations with other tested fit indexes, WRMR was most highly related to SRMR. Due to the similarities between the indexes, Yu (2002) suggested that WRMR could be used in place of SRMR when dichotomous data were analyzed, and that WRMR should be reported along with CFI (or TLI) and…”
Evaluating Measurement Invariance of TALIS 2013 Complex Scales: Comparison between Continuous and Categorical Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analyses (2014, methodology): “To evaluate what was modelled from the observed variables, the fit of the baseline model (i.e., the congeneric model as defined in Graham, 2006) and each model of invariance, we used the following acceptable criteria: non-significant chi-square test with p degrees of freedom ( ); Comparative Fit Ind”
From strengths use to work performance: The role of harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration (2014, background): “Likewise, values up to 0.08 for RMSEA indicate acceptable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996) although values lower than 0.06 are preferable (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Yu, 2002).”
Gender Differences in Environmental Concern: Reevaluating Gender Socialization (2016, methodology): “We used a combination of RMSEA <.06, CFI >.95 as cutoff points before concluding there was a reasonable fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data (see Yu 2002).”