Reporting Analyses of Covariance Structures

By Anne Boomsma. 2000

650 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a85f00149747a01d8239c61dfc1b820223a5d0bf

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

Citations in the corpus

BEST PRACTICES IN STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING (2007, methodology): “Drawing on our own experiences as authors and reviewers of SEM studies, as well as on existing guides for reporting SEM results (e.g., Boomsma, 2000; Hoyle & Panter, 1995; McDonald & Ho, 2002), we offer a collection of best practices guidelines to those analysts and authors who contemplate using S”
Knowledge Flows Within Multinational Corporations: Explaining Subsidiary Isolation and Its Performance Implications (2008, methodology): “AIC ( Boomsma 2000, Hu and Bentler 1999) was better for our four-factor model than for the one- or two-factor models (AIC4-factors = 26� 20; AIC2-factors = 108� 74; AIC1-factor = 185� 48).”
Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications (2007, neutral): “Two measurement items from each dimension were dropped for reasons such as significant cross-loadings, collinearity, and/or Heywood cases (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Boomsma 2000).”
Perceptions of Attachment Style and Marital Quality in Midlife Marriage (2005, background): “Th ese statistics provide a comprehensive assessment of the fi t of the model to the data (Boomsma, 2000).”
Factorial and Criterion Validity of Scores of a Measure of Belonging in Youth Development Programs (2002, result): “These values are comparable to those found in other research using similar parameter estimation techniques, so they are reported primarily for descriptive purposes (Boomsma, 2000).”
Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. (2003, background): “Therefore researchers should pay attention "to the important but difficult question regarding the discrepancy between the simplified, formalized theoretical model and the actual operating processes that govern the phenomena under study in the real empirical world" (Boomsma, 2000, p. 477).”
Use of Structural Equation Modeling in Tourism Research (2013, background): “Given these concerns, SEM experts note that specifying alternative models a priori is generally safer than post hoc modifications (Boomsma 2000; Hoyle and Panter 1995; McDonald and Ho 2002).”
Conceptualizing and testing formative constructs: tutorial and annotated example (2009, methodology): “Model fit is assessed through standard SEM measures of fit, such as the model chi-square, CFI, GFI, NFI, RMSEA, or SRMR (Boomsma 2000; Gefen et al. 2000).”
Effects of different leadership styles on hospitality workers (2019, methodology): “Hayduk, Cummings, Boadu, Pazderka-Robinson, & Boulianne (2007), (Boomsma, 2000), and Kline (2005, 2011) have reviewed the importance of the result of this test in evaluating the structural model.”
Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit (2008, background): “Kline (2005) speaks strongly about which indices to include and advocates the use of the Chi-Square test, the RMSEA, the CFI and the SRMR. Boomsma (2000) has similar recommendations but also advises for the squared multiple correlations of each equation to be reported.”
Factor structure of the TOEFL Internet-based test (2009, methodology): “Widely used fit indexes were employed (Boomsa, 2000; Hoyle & Panter, 1995; Raykov, Tomer, & Nesselroade, 1991): Satorra-Bentler (S-B) χ(2), S-B χ(2)/df, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), nonnormed fit index (NNFI), and root mean ”
(Why) Should We Use SEM? Pros and Cons of Structural Equation Modeling (2003, background): “Some guidelines and recommendations are available to bring up the publication culture and to make published analyses comprehensible and appraisable (e.g. American Psychological Association, 2001; Boomsma, 2000; Hoyle & Panter, 1995).”
Measuring Student Involvement: A Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory in the Construction of Scales from Student Surveys (2011, methodology): “As previous authors have suggested (Laird et al. 2005), we followed the guidelines by Raykov et al. (1991) and Boomsma (2000) and examined the following model fit measures: the Normed Fit Index (NFI), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), as well as the misfit index…”
Multidimensional Fear of Failure Measurement: The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (2002, background): “Thus, the statistic was reported for descriptive purposes only (Boomsma, 2000).”