Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives

Verifica disponibilità: Testo completo (sito dell'editore)

Abstract

This article examines the adequacy of the “rules of thumb” conventional cutoff criteria and several new alternatives for various fit indexes used to evaluate model fit in practice. Using a 2‐index presentation strategy, which includes using the maximum likelihood (ML)‐based standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) and supplementing it with either Tucker‐Lewis Index (TLI), Bollen's (1989) Fit Index (BL89), Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Gamma Hat, McDonald's Centrality Index (Mc), or root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), various combinations of cutoff values from selected ranges of cutoff criteria for the ML‐based SRMR and a given supplemental fit index were used to calculate rejection rates for various types of true‐population and misspecified models; that is, models with misspecified factor covariance(s) and models with misspecified factor loading(s). The results suggest that, for the ML method, a cutoff value close to .95 for TLI, BL89, CFI, RNI, and Gamma Hat; a cutoff value close to .90 for Mc; a cutoff value close to .08 for SRMR; and a cutoff value close to .06 for RMSEA are needed before we can conclude that there is a relatively good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data. Furthermore, the 2‐index presentation strategy is required to reject reasonable proportions of various types of true‐population and misspecified models. Finally, using the proposed cutoff criteria, the ML‐based TLI, Mc, and RMSEA tend to overreject true‐population models at small sample size and thus are less preferable when sample size is small.

Salvato in:
Dettagli Bibliografici
Autori: Li‐tze Hu (University of California, Santa Cruz); Peter M. Bentler iD ORCID 0000-0002-9440-721X (University of California, Los Angeles)
Pubblicato in: Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 6, n. 1, pp. 1-55
Data di pubblicazione:01/01/1999
Editore:Taylor & Francis
Tipo di documento:Articolo
Lingua:inglese
DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118
ISSN:1070-5511, 1532-8007
Accesso aperto: Nessuna copia ad accesso aperto nota: per le risorse in abbonamento usare Verifica disponibilità.
Citazioni ricevute:108.469
Soggetti:
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing (Social Sciences > Decision Sciences > Management Science and Operations Research)
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference (Physical Sciences > Mathematics > Statistics and Probability)
Statistical Distribution Estimation and Applications (Physical Sciences > Mathematics > Statistics and Probability)
Identificativi: OpenAlex W2071666535

Dati dell'indice centrale: OpenAlex (licenza CC0).

Descrizione
Riassunto:This article examines the adequacy of the “rules of thumb” conventional cutoff criteria and several new alternatives for various fit indexes used to evaluate model fit in practice. Using a 2‐index presentation strategy, which includes using the maximum likelihood (ML)‐based standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) and supplementing it with either Tucker‐Lewis Index (TLI), Bollen's (1989) Fit Index (BL89), Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Gamma Hat, McDonald's Centrality Index (Mc), or root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), various combinations of cutoff values from selected ranges of cutoff criteria for the ML‐based SRMR and a given supplemental fit index were used to calculate rejection rates for various types of true‐population and misspecified models; that is, models with misspecified factor covariance(s) and models with misspecified factor loading(s). The results suggest that, for the ML method, a cutoff value close to .95 for TLI, BL89, CFI, RNI, and Gamma Hat; a cutoff value close to .90 for Mc; a cutoff value close to .08 for SRMR; and a cutoff value close to .06 for RMSEA are needed before we can conclude that there is a relatively good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data. Furthermore, the 2‐index presentation strategy is required to reject reasonable proportions of various types of true‐population and misspecified models. Finally, using the proposed cutoff criteria, the ML‐based TLI, Mc, and RMSEA tend to overreject true‐population models at small sample size and thus are less preferable when sample size is small.
ISSN:1070-5511
1532-8007
DOI:10.1080/10705519909540118