The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.
Abstract
A framework for hypothesis testing and power analysis in the assessment of fit of covariance structure models is presented. We emphasize the value of confidence intervals for fit indices, and we stress the relationship of confidence intervals to a framework for hypothesis testing. The approach allows for testing null hypotheses of not-good fit, reversing the role of the null hypothesis in conventional tests of model fit, so that a significant result provides strong support for good fit. The approach also allows for direct estimation of power, where effect size is defined in terms of a null and alternative value of the root-mean-square error of approximation fit index proposed by J. H. Steiger and J. M. Lind (1980). It is also feasible to determine minimum sample size required to achieve a given level of power for any test of fit in this framework. Computer programs and examples are provided for power analyses and calculation of minimum sample sizes.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“On the other hand, for moderate Ns and low complexity models, obtaining a narrow confidence interval is more likely (MacCallum et al., 1996 cited in Byrne, 2012).”
From Applied Psychometrics: Sample Size and Sample Power Considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General (2018) · cites this paper as MacCallum et al., 1996 cited in Byrne, 2012
In the citing paper
“Additionally, the width of RMSEA confidence intervals is affected by sample size and model complexity (MacCallum et al., 1996; Brown, 2015; Byrne, 2012).”
From Applied Psychometrics: Sample Size and Sample Power Considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General (2018) · cites this paper as MacCallum et al., 1996
In the citing paper
“Overall, the CFI and SRMR values provided evidence of a good fitting model.However, RMSEA values were in the commonly accepted range indicating mediocre fit (MacCallum et al. 1996).”
From Disclosing Extra-Dyadic Involvement (EDI): Understanding Attitudes, Subjective Norms, and Perceived Behavioral Control (2013) · cites this paper as MacCallum et al. 1996
In the citing paper
“Both hypothesized models have reasonably strong indices of fit, as indicated in Table 5. Comparative fit indices (CFIs) of 0.97 and 0.963 respectively indicate that the models exhibit good fit according to several general guidelines and recommendations (Bentler, 1990, MacCallum et al., 1996, Hu and Bentler, 1999).Similarly, the models also both have high Tucker-Lewis indices (TLIs) of greater than”
From Discriminatory attitudes between ridesharing passengers (2020) · cites this paper as MacCallum et al., 1996
In the citing paper
“This was evidenced by CFI = 0.96 and RMSEA = 0.08 [CI, 0.06–0.09] [18, 22] after allowing the error terms between “MBC meets her approval” and “MBC is appealing to her” as well as between “She welcomes MBC” and “She likes MBC” to correlate to account for differences in sentence structure (i.e., passive versus active voice)(see Fig. 2).”
From Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures (2017) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“Power analysis based on the RMSEA test of close fit estimated power at 84% with a sample size of 60 participants [18].”
From Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures (2017) · cites this paper as [18]
Citations
Cites
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–243 of 243
Social isolation after spinal cord injury: indicators from the Longitudinal Aging Study
Newman, S. D., Li, C., & Krause, J. S. (2016) · Rehabilitation Psychology · doi:10.1037/rep0000112 · Cited by 32
Discriminatory attitudes between ridesharing passengers
Middleton, S., & Zhao, J. (2020) · Transportation · doi:10.1007/s11116-019-10020-y · Cited by 30
Palmer, R. H. C., McGeary, J. E., Heath, A. C., Keller, M. C., Brick, L. A., & Knopik, V. S. (2015) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.13070 · Cited by 28
Marketing effectiveness of hotel Twitter accounts: The case of Saudi Arabia
Alansari, M. T., Velikova, N., & Jai, T.-M. (. (2018) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-09-2017-0096 · Cited by 30
Tao, X., & Fisher, C. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/46604 · Cited by 29
Weight Bias Internalization: The Maladaptive Effects of Moral Condemnation on Intrinsic Motivation
Täuber, S., Gausel, N., & Flint, S. W. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01836 · Cited by 29
Åkerblom, S., Perrin, S., Fischer, M. R., & McCracken, L. M. (2016) · International Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12529-016-9539-x · Cited by 26
Mistrust and negative self‐esteem: Two paths from attachment styles to paranoia.
Martinez, A. P., Agostini, M., Al‐Suhibani, A., & Bentall, R. P. (2021) · Psychology and Psychotherapy Theory Research and Practice · doi:10.1111/papt.12314 · Cited by 25
Tikhomirova, A., Huang, J., Chuanmin, S., Khayyam, M., Ali, H., & Khramchenko, D. S. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746467 · Cited by 34
Vowles, K. E., Sowden, G., Hickman, J., & Ashworth, J. (2019) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2018.10.012 · Cited by 24
Validation of the Patient Advocacy Engagement Scale for Health Professionals
Jansson, B. S., Nyamathi, A., Duan, L., Kaplan, C., Heidemann, G., & Ananias, D. (2015) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.21638 · Cited by 24
An Examination of the Factor Structure of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory.
Thomas, K. N., Bardeen, J. R., Witte, T. K., Rogers, T. A., Benfer, N., & Clauss, K. (2022) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/10731911211024353 · Cited by 24
Zhang, C.-Q., Chung, P.-K., Si, G., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2016) · Psychology of sport and exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.02.006 · Cited by 21
Moscovitch, D. A., Rowa, K., Paulitzki, J. R., Antony, M. M., & McCabe, R. E. (2015) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-014-9645-5 · Cited by 22
Tsai, J., Thase, M. E., Mao, Y., Ng-Mak, D., Pikalov, A., & Loebel, A. (2017) · CNS Spectrums · doi:10.1017/s1092852917000074 · Cited by 22
Short, N. A., Boffa, J. W., King, S., Albanese, B. J., Allan, N. P., & Schmidt, N. B. (2017) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2017.09.013 · Cited by 22
Shi, D., Song, H., DiStefano, C., Maydeu-Olivares, A., McDaniel, H. L., & Jiang, Z. (2019) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2018.1514484 · Cited by 19
Black, J. E., & Barnes, J. L. (2021) · Psychology of Popular Media · doi:10.1037/ppm0000281 · Cited by 19
Revisiting the five-facet structure of mindfulness
Karl, J. A., & Fischer, R. (2020) · Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences · doi:10.1186/s42409-020-00014-3 · Cited by 19
Psychological, cultural and neuroendocrine profiles of risk for preterm birth
Ruiz, R. J., Dwivedi, A. K., Mallawaarachichi, I., Balcazar, H. G., Stowe, R. P., Ayers, K. S., & Pickler, R. (2015) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0640-y · Cited by 18
Validation of the Policy Advocacy Engagement Scale for frontline healthcare professionals
Jansson, B. S., Nyamathi, A., Heidemann, G., Duan, L., & Kaplan, C. (2017) · Nursing Ethics · doi:10.1177/0969733015603443 · Cited by 18
“A CFI or TLI > .90 is generally accepted as indicative of good model fit.53 MacCallum et al.54 have suggested a RMSEA .08 indicates mediocre model fit.”
BackgroundCollective Action in Response to Microaggression: Implications for Social Well-Being
Sohi, K. K., & Singh, P. (2015) · Race and Social Problems · doi:10.1007/s12552-015-9156-3 · Cited by 18
Mahoney, A. E. J., Hobbs, M. J., Williams, A. D., Andrews, G., & Newby, J. M. (2018) · Behaviour Change · doi:10.1017/bec.2018.13 · Cited by 15
Spark, A., & O'Connor, P. J. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109934 · Cited by 15
Factor mixture modeling of intolerance of uncertainty.
Oglesby, M. E., Allan, N. P., Short, N. A., Raines, A. M., & Schmidt, N. B. (2017) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000357 · Cited by 15
Pauls, F., Petermann, F., & Lepach, A. C. (2013) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803395.2013.820257 · Cited by 13
Predicting Mental Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors Using Comparison Participants
Lelorain, S., Tessier, P., Florin, A., & Bonnaud-Antignac, A. (2011) · Journal of Psychosocial Oncology · doi:10.1080/07347332.2011.582635 · Cited by 14
Are we Ready to Use Microchip Implants? An International Cross-sectional Study
Žnidaršič, A., Baggia, A., Pavlíček, A., Fischer, J., Rostański, M., & Werber, B. (2021) · Organizacija · doi:10.2478/orga-2021-0019 · Cited by 14
Becker, A. B. C., Maurer, J., Daseking, M., & Pauls, F. (2024) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence12010006 · Cited by 11
Xu, C., Gu, Z., Yan, J., Lock, M., Chen, S., & Zhuang, Q. (2025) · Psychology Research and Behavior Management · doi:10.2147/prbm.s491731 · Cited by 10
Lindsey, S., Hiskey, S., Irons, C., & Andrews, L. (2022) · OBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine · doi:10.21926/obm.icm.2203039 · Cited by 10
van Helmondt, S. J., Lodder, P., van Woezik, R., de Vries, J., & van der Lee, M. L. (2023) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/abm/kaac078 · Cited by 10
Kamperman, A. M., Kooiman, C. G., Lorenzini, N., Aleknaviciute, J., Allen, J. G., & Fonagy, P. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237576 · Cited by 9
De Clercq, L. E., Soenens, B., Dieleman, L. M., Prinzie, P., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Beyers, W., & De Pauw, S. S. W. (2022) · Child Psychiatry & Human Development · doi:10.1007/s10578-020-01106-1 · Cited by 8
When ownership of the venture triggers cofounders’ unethical pro-venture behavior
Hong, M. C., Lin, H.-E., Hsu, D. K., & Shi, Y. (2021) · Journal of Business Venturing Insights · doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00255 · Cited by 8
Maternal parentification history impacts evaluative cognitions about self, parenting, and child
Nuttall, A. K., Ballinger, A. L., Levendosky, A. A., & Borkowski, J. G. (2021) · Infant Mental Health Journal · doi:10.1002/imhj.21912 · Cited by 7
(2023) · Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management · doi:10.46254/na07.20220027 · Cited by 5
Emotional Variability Predicts Tiredness in Daily Life: An Experience Sampling Study
Mill, A., Realo, A., & Allik, J. (2016) · Journal of Individual Differences · doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000206 · Cited by 6
Seedall, R. B., Houghtaling, A., & Wilkins, E. J. (2013) · Contemporary Family Therapy · doi:10.1007/s10591-013-9243-9 · Cited by 5
Cwik, J. C., Forkmann, T., Glaesmer, H., Paashaus, L., Schönfelder, A., Rath, D., Prinz, S., Juckel, G., & Teismann, T. (2020) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-020-02812-9 · Cited by 5
Xu, W., Zhu, K., Zhou, D., Wang, C., & Wen, C. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15070828 · Cited by 4
Kim, J., Lee, H., & Ahn, H. (2026) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107865
The Use of Outsider Witness Practice in Narrative Therapy in Group Counseling: A Mixed Method Study
Kurtuluş, E., & Düşünceli, B. (2026) · Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi · doi:10.17066/tpdrd.1950394
Metadata
- Authors
- MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 130-149
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W1971410477
- Cited by
- 10,418
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 637 · 2025: 718 · 2024: 657 · 2023: 739 · 2022: 687 · 2021: 716 · 2020: 655 · 2019: 607 · 2018: 578 · 2017: 519 · 2016: 518 · 2015: 469 · 2014: 464 · 2013: 428 · 2012: 317
- FWCI
- 35.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- power analysis, sample size determination, structural equation modeling, model fit assessment, RMSEA, effect size, hypothesis testing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
