Simulation study on fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) based on data with slightly distorted simple structure

By André Beauducel, Werner W. Wittmann. 2005

112 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7db9055dd017556f6f8897cfe3e1cb3e8b6b45bf

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

Emotions evoked by the sound of music: characterization, classification, and measurement. (2008, methodology): “…with small deviations from simple structure (such as the current one), the recommendation is to rely on decision rules based on a combination of SRMR and RMSEA because, in contrast to the incremental fit indices, RMSEA does not penalize for model complexity (e.g., Beauducel & Wittmann, 2005).”
Structural equation modelling : Adjudging model fit (2007, unknown): “…indicative thresholds for approximate fit indices, essentially removing the notion that a single threshold-value can be applied to any particular approximate fit index under all measurement and data conditions (Beauducel & Wittmann (2005); Fan & Sivo (2005); Marsh, Hau, & Wen (2004); Yuan (2005)).”
Working Memory Dimensions as Differential Predictors of the Speed and Error Aspect of Multitasking Performance (2006, methodology): “The model fit was assessed as recommended by Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999; see also Beauducel & Wittmann, 2005).”
Filling the Entrepreneurial Orientation–Performance Gap: The Mediating Effects of Exploratory and Exploitative Innovations (2014, methodology): “Phase 1: CFA Model Results and Psychometric Properties of Constructs As suggested by Beauducel and Wittmann (2005), multiple indices were used to assess the fit of each model.”
The Relationship Between Root Mean Square Error of Approximation and Model Misspecification in Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models (2012, background): “They showed than even tiny omitted residual covariances will result in a large RMSEA when factor loadings are high enough.3 Finally, Beauducel and Wittmann (2005) studied RMSEA’s dependence on the size of the factor loadings when the misspecification was an omitted cross-loading in an otherwise…”
On the Performance of Maximum Likelihood Versus Means and Variance Adjusted Weighted Least Squares Estimation in CFA (2006, methodology): “The weighting procedure necessary to provide specific covariances or correlations is described in Knuth (1981) and in Beauducel and Wittmann (2005). The standard deviation of the normally distributed measured variables created by this procedure was 10 and their mean was zero.”
The Religious Schema Scale: Construction and Initial Validation of a Quantitative Measure for Religious Styles (2010, background): “According to Beauducel and Wittmann (2005), this selection of indices bears the most valid information for the evaluation of CFA results (cf. also Hu & Bentler, 1999).”
Understanding, differentiating, and measuring opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation (2017, unknown): “In the CFA, as suggested in the literature, multiple indices were used to assess fit (Beauducel and Wittmann, 2005).”
A Two-level Model of Motor Performance Ability (2010, methodology): “…of the global goodness-of-fit was based on the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), as recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999) and, additionally, on the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), as recommended by Beauducel and Wittmann (2005).”
Mathematics attitudes and their unique contribution to achievement: Going over and above cognitive ability and personality (2016, unknown): “…in the structural equation modeling literature: (a) Acceptable fit: RMSEA ≤ .08, SRMR ≤ .09, andCFI≈ .90; (b)Goodfit: RMSEA ≤ .05 (or 90%C.I. of the RMSEA including .05), SRMR ≤ .09, and CFI ≥ .95 (e.g., Beauducel & Wittmann, 2005; Browne & Cudeck, 1992; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau, &Wen, 2004).”
Mathematics Attitudes and Mathematics Outcomes of U.S. and Belarusian Middle School Students. (2011, unknown): “.09, and CFI " .95 (e.g., Beauducel & Wittmann, 2005; Browne & Cudeck, 1992; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004).”