Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses.

By R. Mcdonald, Moon-ho Ringo Ho. Psychological methods, 2002

4,489 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab0c1ec621636414e3bbdc2a966083ce60e5316f

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

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Organizational justice and organizational commitment among South Korean police officers (2012, methodology): “Prior studies recommend examining multiple model fit indices for SEM analyses (Gau, 2010; McDonald and Ho, 2002; Schumacker and Lomax, 2004).”
Correlation and Causation in the Study of Personality (2012, methodology): “First, the conventional approach has been inadequately formalized and frequently abused (Freedman, 1987; McDonald & Ho, 2002), and the graphical framework supplies a necessary remedy for these shortcomings.”
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”
Factors Precipitating Suicidality among Homeless Youth (2006, methodology): “…was the significant direct relationship between total drug use and hopelessness, which was incorporated into the revised model, given similar previous empirical findings and theoretical soundness of these relationships, as is recommended when considering model modification (McDonald & Ho, 2002).”
Measuring cultural intelligence (CQ) (2015, positive): “We employed maximum likelihood estimation procedures, because the data did not strongly violate multivariate normality assumptions (McDonald & Ho, 2002).”
Toward a fuller conception of Machismo: Development of a traditional Machismo and Caballerismo Scale. (2008, methodology): “Given these values and the relative robustness of maximum likelihood estimation with minor deviations from normality (McDonald & Ho, 2002), we elected to use maximum likelihood estimation.”
Understanding the Model Size Effect on SEM Fit Indices (2018, methodology): “The above three fit indices have been routinely reported by SEM software (e.g., Mplus) and have been used as standard tools for evaluating model fit (Hancock & Mueller, 2010; McDonald & Ho, 2002).”
A critical review of structural equation modeling applications in construction research (2015, methodology): “However, χ(2) statistics have been criticized for being sensitive to sample size and for only providing a dichotomous ‘accept or reject’ result [35,44].”
A Structural Examination of the Predictors of Sexual Coercion Against Children in Adolescent Sexual Offenders (2007, methodology): “Multiple-group SEM was employed, which requires a different group for each pattern of missing data with equality constraints imposed across groups (McDonald & Ho, 2002).”
A Structural Model of Autonomy in Middle and Late Adolescence: Connectedness, Separation, Detachment, and Agency (2003, background): “Therefore, the value of the SRMR of Model 3 (Table I) provides an adequate summary of these residuals ( McDonald and Ho, 2002 ).”