Structural equation models: Present and Future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog.

By R. Cudeck, S. D. Toit, D. Sörbom. 2001

161 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c84c205e9aeda05bd1f84bc1b3acfc201adf3796

How researchers see this paper

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

1. H. Dittmar
2. D. Clay
3. Vivian L. Vignoles
4. Andrew Tomarken
5. N. Waller
6. Mike W.-L. Cheung
7. E. Charney
8. M. Wong

Citations in the corpus

• Structural equation modeling: strengths, limitations, and misconceptions. (2005, background): “See Cudeck et al. 2001, pp. 139–68 Breckler SJ. 1990.”
• Burnout and engagement: Identical twins or just close relatives? (2017, unknown): “Therefore, in all LISREL analyses, Robust Maximum Likelihood (RML) estimation (Boomsma & Hoogland, 2001) was used.”
• Body Image and Self-Esteem Among Adolescent Girls: Testing the Influence of Sociocultural Factors (2005, background): “However, we encountered no problems of nonconvergence or improper solutions—common difficulties with small sample sizes in structural equation modeling (Boomsma & Hoogland, 2001)—and the analysis had sufficient power to detect the effects of interest.”