The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification
Abstract
This study evaluated the sensitivity of maximum likelihood (ML)-, generalized least squares (GLS)-, and asymptotic distribution-free (ADF)-based fit indices to model misspecification, under conditions that varied sample size and distribution. The effect of violating assumptions of asymptotic robustness theory also was ex-amined. Standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) was the most sensitive index to models with misspecified factor covariance(s), and Tucker-Lewis Index (1973; TLI), Bollen's fit index (1989; BL89), relative noncentrality index (RNI), comparative fit index (CFI), and the ML- and GLS-based gamma hat, McDonald's centrality index (1989; Me), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) were the most sensitive indices to models with misspecified factor loadings. With ML and GLS methods, we recommend the use of SRMR, supple-mented by TLI, BL89, RNI, CFI, gamma hat, Me, or RMSEA (TLI, Me, and RMSEA are less preferable at small sample sizes). With the ADF method, we recommend the use of SRMR, supplemented by TLI, BL89, RNI, or CFI. Finally, most of the ML-based fit indices outperformed those obtained from GLS and ADF
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
“Based on guidelines for goodness-of-fit values (RMSEA, CFI, and TLI) proposed by Hu and Bentler (1998), there was good fit for the WISC/four-factor and CHC/five factor models.”
From Structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition in a Group of Children with ADHD (2016) · cites this paper as Hu and Bentler (1998)
In the citing paper
“The CFI and IFI showed adequate fit, with values above .95(Hu & Bentler, 1998).”
From The Argentinian version of the cognitive fusion questionnaire: Psychometric properties and the role of cognitive fusion as a predictor of pathological worry (2022) · cites this paper as Hu & Bentler, 1998
In the citing paper
“RMSEA and SRMR values of 0.05 or lower as well as TLI and CFI values of 0.97 or higher indicate good model fit.”
From Procrastination, depression and anxiety symptoms in university students: a three-wave longitudinal study on the mediating role of perceived stress (2024) · cites this paper as [47]
In the citing paper
“CFI > 0.90, RMSEA and SRMR <0.08, and χ2/df < 3 indicate good model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1998).”
From Efficacy and mechanisms of mobile application-delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in China: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as Hu and Bentler, 1998
In the citing paper
“Hu and Bentler (1998) suggest that cut off values of less than .06 for RMSEA, less than .08 for SRMR and greater than .95 for the CFI and IFI are indicative of good model fit.”
From The development and initial validation of the cognitive fusion questionnaire (2014) · cites this paper as Hu and Bentler, 1998
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Self-citationAlternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Self-citationSignificance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 20,015
Self-citationPower analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.130 · Cited by 10,418
EQS : structural equations program manual
Bentler, P. M. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,669
Self-citationExperimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
Kirk, R. (2013) · doi:10.4135/9781483384733 · Cited by 8,539
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Clogg, C. C., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1995) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2580595 · Cited by 8,246
(1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,690
A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291170 · Cited by 7,330
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,101–1,200 of 1,201
Differential Treatment Mechanisms in Mindfulness Meditation and Progressive Muscle Relaxation
Gao, L., Curtiss, J., Liu, X., & Hofmann, S. G. (2018) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0869-9 · Cited by 46
Anatomy in the metaverse: Exploring student technology acceptance through the UTAUT2 model
Kalınkara, Y., & Özdemir, O. (2024) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.2353 · Cited by 46
Towards a Decomposed Expectation-Confirmation Model of IT Continuance: The Role of Usability
University of Turku, Islam, A. K. M. N., Mäntymäki, M., University of Turku, Bhattacherjee, A., & University of South Florida (2017) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.04023 · Cited by 46
Jitlina, K., Zumbo, B., Mirenda, P., Ford, L., Bennett, T., Georgiades, S., Waddell, C., Smith, I. M., Volden, J., Duku, E., et al. (2017) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-017-3110-8 · Cited by 44
van der Pas, S., van Tilburg, T., & Knipscheer, K. C. P. M. (2005) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164405278559 · Cited by 45
Kumar, S., Kumar, P., & Bhasker, B. (2018) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2018.1470671 · Cited by 44
Construct Validity of the WISC–IVUKWith a Large Referred Irish Sample
Watkins, M. W., Canivez, G. L., James, T., James, K., & Good, R. (2013) · International Journal of School & Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/21683603.2013.794439 · Cited by 43
Understanding consumers’ decisions to adopt technology-enabled transformative services
Schuster, L., Drennan, J., & Lings, I. (2015) · The Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2015.1090979 · Cited by 42
Sommers-Spijkerman, M., Trompetter, H., ten Klooster, P., Schreurs, K., Gilbert, P., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2018) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000514 · Cited by 43
Lieb, R. W., & Bohnert, A. M. (2017) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-017-3205-2 · Cited by 43
Assessing psychological flexibility: Validation of the Open and Engaged State Questionnaire
Benoy, C., Knitter, B., Knellwolf, L., Doering, S., Klotsche, J., & Gloster, A. T. (2019) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.08.005 · Cited by 48
Test–retest reliability and sensitivity to change of the dimensional anxiety scales for DSM-5
Knappe, S., Klotsche, J., Heyde, F., Hiob, S., Siegert, J., Hoyer, J., Strobel, A., LeBeau, R. T., Craske, M. G., Wittchen, H.-U., et al. (2014) · CNS Spectrums · doi:10.1017/s1092852913000710 · Cited by 40
Mechanisms of Mindfulness in Communication Training
Huston, D. C., Garland, E. L., & Farb, N. A. S. (2011) · Journal of Applied Communication Research · doi:10.1080/00909882.2011.608696 · Cited by 40
Kleemola, K., Hyytinen, H., & Toom, A. (2022) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2021.1946482 · Cited by 38
Carleton, R. N., Collimore, K. C., Asmundson, G. J. G., McCabe, R. E., Rowa, K., & Antony, M. M. (2010) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.09.003 · Cited by 39
Perceived posttraumatic growth and depreciation after spinal cord injury: Actual or illusory?
Kunz, S., Joseph, S., Geyh, S., & Peter, C. (2019) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/hea0000676 · Cited by 37
Pettigrew, C., Soldan, A., Moghekar, A., Wang, M.-C., Gross, A. L., O’Brien, R., & Albert, M. (2015) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.09.024 · Cited by 38
McRae, K., Rhee, S. H., Gatt, J. M., Godinez, D., Williams, L. M., & Gross, J. J. (2017) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000300 · Cited by 36
The Importance of Social Support in Recovery Populations: Toward a Multilevel Understanding
Islam, M. F., Guerrero, M., Nguyen, R. L., Porcaro, A., Cummings, C., Stevens, E., Kang, A., & Jason, L. A. (2023) · Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07347324.2023.2181119 · Cited by 36
“Internal validity of the social support latent factor was assessed using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation method (Hu & Bentler, 1998).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTrompetter, H. R., Bohlmeijer, E. T., van Baalen, B., Kleen, M., Köke, A., Reneman, M., & Schreurs, K. M. G. (2014) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000191 · Cited by 35
Spinhoven, P., Penelo, E., de Rooij, M., Penninx, B. W., & Ormel, J. (2014) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291713000822 · Cited by 33
Heeren, A., Ceschi, Dethier, Philippot, & Valentiner (2013) · Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · doi:10.2147/ndt.s43097 · Cited by 35
“The combination of RMSEA and SRMR is valuable because the SRMR is sensitive to the misspecification of the factor covariances, whereas the RMSEA is sensitive to the misspecification of factor loadings.(51) In this way, if both indices were accepted, then the latent and the measurement model would be considered to be w…”
Sharifian, N., Kraal, A. Z., Zaheed, A. B., Sol, K., & Zahodne, L. B. (2020) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2019.1660850 · Cited by 34
New developments in the assessment of weight-related experiential avoidance (AAQW-Revised)
Palmeira, L., Cunha, M., Pinto-Gouveia, J., Carvalho, S., & Lillis, J. (2016) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.06.001 · Cited by 34
Digital leadership: transitioning into the digital age
Prince, K. A. (2018) · James Cook University · doi:10.25903/5d2bdd672c0e5 · Cited by 34
Salum, G. A., DeSousa, D. A., Manfro, G. G., Pan, P. M., Gadelha, A., Brietzke, E., Miguel, E. C., Mari, J. J., Rosário, M. C. D., & Grassi-Oliveira, R. (2016) · Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy · doi:10.1590/2237-6089-2015-0036 · Cited by 33
Carona, C., Pereira, M., Araújo-Pedrosa, A., Canavarro, M. C., & Fonseca, A. (2023) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/39253 · Cited by 33
“The overall model fit was ascertained using the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic (significance at P >.05), the comparative fit index (CFI; ≥ 0.95), the root mean square of approximation (RMSEA; ≤ 0.08), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; ≤ 0.08) [31,32].”
InfluentialSabharwal, D., Kabha, R., & Srivastava, K. (2023) · Journal of Content Community and Communication · doi:10.31620/jccc.06.23/12 · Cited by 33
Is There a Core Process Across Depression and Anxiety?
Bird, T., Mansell, W., Dickens, C., & Tai, S. (2013) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9475-2 · Cited by 31
Lloyd, J., Chalklin, V., & Bond, F. W. (2019) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/cou0000371 · Cited by 30
Development and validation of the Food Noise Questionnaire
Diktas, H. E., Cardel, M. I., Foster, G. D., LeBlanc, M. M., Dickinson, S. L., Ables, E. M., Chen, X., Nathan, R., Shapiro, D., & Martin, C. K. (2025) · Obesity · doi:10.1002/oby.24216 · Cited by 35
Pantalon, M. V., Martino, S., Dziura, J., Li, F.-Y., Owens, P. H., Fiellin, D. A., O'Connor, P. G., & D'Onofrio, G. (2012) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2012.08.011 · Cited by 30
“…accounting for more of the total variance than any single variable), as well as, the following model selection criteria based on the work of Hu & Bentler (1998) and Yu (2002): Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSER) < 0.06, Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) < 0.06, Comparative Fit…”
MethodInfluentialJansen, J., Schulz-Quach, C., Eisenbeck, N., Carreno, D. F., Schmitz, A., Fountain, R., Franz, M., Schäfer, R., Wong, P. T. P., & Fetz, K. (2019) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-019-0336-6 · Cited by 28
George, M. W., Fairchild, A. J., Mark Cummings, E., & Davies, P. T. (2014) · Eating Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.06.006 · Cited by 26
Safdar, B., Habib, A., Amjad, A., & Abbas, J. (2020) · International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development · doi:10.6007/ijarped/v9-i4/8458 · Cited by 29
Skowronski, M., Busching, R., & Krahé, B. (2021) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-020-01187-1 · Cited by 27
Concept and validation of the German version of the cognitive fusion questionnaire (CFQ-D)
China, C., Hansen, L. B., Gillanders, D. T., & Benninghoven, D. (2018) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.06.003 · Cited by 26
Yen, C.-F., Lin, H.-C., Wang, P.-W., Ko, C.-H., Lee, K.-H., Hsu, C.-Y., Chung, K.-S., Wu, H.-C., & Cheng, C.-P. (2016) · Comprehensive Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.10.001 · Cited by 27
Nakano, S., & Watkins, M. W. (2013) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.21724 · Cited by 27
Impacts of job control on overtime and stress: Cases in the United States and South Korea
Kim, S., Kwon, K., & Wang, J. (2022) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2020.1757738 · Cited by 26
Chen, L., Li, J., & Huang, J. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19137578 · Cited by 26
“However, considering the sensitivity of the Chi-square value to the large sample size (when the sample size is large, the Chi-square value can easily reach significance), it was not reported in this study and other indicators were tested and referred to [55].”
BackgroundDella Longa, N. M., & De Young, K. P. (2018) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.09.022 · Cited by 26
Li, Y., Guo, Y., Hong, Y. A., Zhu, M., Zeng, C., Qiao, J., Xu, Z., Zhang, H., Zeng, Y., Cai, W., et al. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/14729 · Cited by 28
Schmits, E., Heeren, A., & Quertemont, E. (2014) · Psychologica Belgica · doi:10.5334/pb.al · Cited by 25
“As argued by Hu and Bentler (1998), the combination of RMSEA and SRMR is valuable because the SRMR is sensitive to the misspecification of the factor’s covariance, and the RMSEA is sensitive to the misspecification of factor loadings.”
BackgroundMethodMaksniemi, E., Hietajärvi, L., Ketonen, E. E., Lonka, K., Puukko, K., & Salmela‐Aro, K. (2022) · Journal of Adolescence · doi:10.1002/jad.12033 · Cited by 25
Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire
Fujisato, H., Ito, M., Takebayashi, Y., Hosogoshi, H., Kato, N., Nakajima, S., Miyamae, M., Oe, Y., Usami, S., Kanie, A., et al. (2017) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.064 · Cited by 23
Jochmann, A., Gusy, B., Lesener, T., & Wolter, C. (2024) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-024-01761-2 · Cited by 42
“As recommended by Hu and Bentler [47], we assessed the models’ goodness of fit by chi-square test statistic, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and comparative fit index (CFI).”
MethodCicero, D. C., & Kerns, J. G. (2011) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.002 · 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
Confirmatory factor analysis of the WISC-IV in a hospital referral sample.
Devena, S. E., Gay, C. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2013) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/0734282913483981 · Cited by 22
Gustavson, D. E., Franz, C. E., Panizzon, M. S., Reynolds, C. A., Xian, H., Jacobson, K. C., Toomey, R., Lyons, M. J., & Kremen, W. S. (2019) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702618805075 · Cited by 22
Dilworth-Bart, J. E., Poehlmann-Tynan, J. A., Taub, A., Liesen, C. A., & Bolt, D. (2018) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.09.007 · Cited by 23
Kinnavane, L., Amin, E., Horne, M., & Aggleton, J. P. (2014) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.12740 · Cited by 21
Smith, A. K., Stasi, S. M., Rhee, S. H., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., & Hewitt, J. K. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2011.00003 · Cited by 22
Mental Pain Questionnaire: An item response theory analysis
Svicher, A., Romanazzo, S., De Cesaris, F., Benemei, S., Geppetti, P., & Cosci, F. (2019) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2019.02.030 · Cited by 21
Chen, M., Zhou, C., Wang, Y., & Li, Y. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10989-7 · Cited by 22
Huang, Y., Bortree, D. S., Yang, F., & Wang, R. (2020) · Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing · doi:10.1080/10495142.2019.1589624 · Cited by 20
Xiong, P., Spira, A. P., & Hall, B. J. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17145219 · Cited by 19
Shomotova, A., ElSayary, A., & Husain, S. (2026) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13832-x · Cited by 19
Olarte-Sánchez, C. M., Kinnavane, L., Amin, E., & Aggleton, J. P. (2014) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/a0037055 · Cited by 18
Validation of the Hungarian version of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II)
Eisenbeck, N., & Szabó-Bartha, A. (2018) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.07.007 · Cited by 18
Esteve, R., Marcos, E., Reyes-Pérez, Á., López-Martínez, A. E., & Ramírez-Maestre, C. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18063054 · Cited by 17
Flynn, M. K., Hernandez, J. O., Hebert, E. R., James, K. K., & Kusick, M. K. (2018) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.11.003 · Cited by 15
Franken, K., Schuffelen, P., ten Klooster, P., van Doesum, K., Westerhof, G., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.985408 · Cited by 16
Duan, W., Fei, Y., Zhao, J., & Guo, X. (2020) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105318755265 · Cited by 16
Turkish version of the Pregnancy‐related Anxiety Scale: A psychometric study
Kurt, G., & Arslan, H. (2021) · Perspectives in Psychiatric Care · doi:10.1111/ppc.12537 · Cited by 16
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
Exploring Posttraumatic Growth in Sierra Leone Using Mixed Methods
Exenberger, S., Steidl, A., Kamara, A., & Huber, A. (2022) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1007/s10902-021-00419-9 · Cited by 15
Faija, C. L., Reeves, D., Heal, C., & Wells, A. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01064 · Cited by 15
Møgelvang, A., & Grassini, S. (2025) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-025-00657-6 · Cited by 16
“Thus, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) in combination with the incremental fit indexes Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were used instead [53, 54].”
Valero-Amaro, V., Galera-Casquet, C., & Barroso-Méndez, M. J. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797621 · Cited by 13
Tudoran, A. A., & Olsen, S. O. (2017) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1633 · Cited by 13
“The indices of measurement model fit revealed a good approximation of the postulated goodness-of-fit: the comparative fit index (CFI) and normed fit index (NFI) exceeded the threshold of .90, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was below .08 (Hu and Bentler, 1998).”
BackgroundGallagher, M. W., Phillips, C. A., D'Souza, J., Richardson, A., Long, L. J., Boswell, J. F., Farchione, T. J., & Barlow, D. H. (2020) · Psychotherapy · doi:10.1037/pst0000283 · Cited by 13
“Acceptable model fit was evaluated using standard model fit criteria: CFI and TLI values close to .95 or above and RMSEA values close to 0.08 or below, and (Hu & Bentler, 1998).”
MethodInfluentialJia, M. (2024) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-01-2024-0101 · Cited by 13
The Experiential Approach Scale: Development and preliminary psychometric properties
Swails, J. A., Zettle, R. D., Burdsal, C. A., & Snyder, J. J. (2016) · The Psychological Record · doi:10.1007/s40732-016-0188-x · Cited by 12
Development of the Ghent Multidimensional Somatic Complaints Scale
Beirens, K., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2010) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191109337187 · Cited by 12
Caetano, K. A. S., Depreeuw, B., Papenfuss, I., Curtiss, J., Langwerden, R. J., Hofmann, S. G., & Neufeld, C. B. (2018) · International Journal of Cognitive Therapy · doi:10.1007/s41811-018-0028-7 · Cited by 11
Zhao, Z., Zhao, C., Ren, Z., Shi, C., & Lai, L. (2022) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2022.100585 · Cited by 11
“CFI > 0.90, RMSEA and SRMR 0.08, and χ 2 / df 3 indicate good model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1998).”
MethodInfluentialDietmaier, G., Ille, R., Schäfer, A., Leutgeb, V., & Schienle, A. (2008) · Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie · doi:10.1026/1616-3443.37.4.272 · Cited by 11
Canning, J. R., Patock-Peckham, J. A., Walters, K. J., Bauman, D. C., Frohe, T., & Leeman, R. F. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109909 · Cited by 10
Morrison, C. L., Rhee, S. H., Smolker, H. R., Corley, R. P., Hewitt, J. K., & Friedman, N. P. (2021) · Behavior Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10519-020-10017-9 · Cited by 8
Locatelli, S. M., Etingen, B., Miskevics, S., & LaVela, S. L. (2017) · Rehabilitation Psychology · doi:10.1037/rep0000153 · Cited by 9
Demir, G. T., Namlı, S., Çakır, E., Batu, B., Ateş, F., Yılmaz, E., Güvendi, B., Adaş, S. K., & Çağın, M. (2025) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-025-03250-6 · Cited by 12
Health-promoting influences among Norwegian women following early postnatal home visit by a midwife
Aune, I., Dahlberg, U., & Haugan, G. (2018) · Nordic Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/2057158517733244 · Cited by 9
Caiado, B., Santos, D., Pereira, B., Góis, A. C., Canavarro, M. C., & Moreira, H. (2024) · Children · doi:10.3390/children11010115 · Cited by 8
“The comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the normalized root mean square residual (SRMR) values were used to determine model fit using the following criteria: CFI ≥ 0.90, Tucker– Lewis index (TLI) ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08 and SRMR ≤ 0.06 [61,62].”
MethodInfluentialJosé Quintero, P. S., Rodríguez Biglieri, R., Etchezahar, E., & Gillanders, D. T. (2022) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-020-00767-4 · Cited by 8
Chen, H., Zhu, J., Liao, Y.-K., & Keith, T. Z. (2020) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/0734282920930542 · Cited by 8
Tynan, M., Afari, N., Dochat, C., Gasperi, M., Roesch, S., & Herbert, M. S. (2022) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.07.001 · Cited by 7
Pantalon, M. V., Dziura, J., Li, F.-Y., Owens, P. H., O'Connor, P. G., & D'Onofrio, G. (2017) · Substance Abuse · doi:10.1080/08897077.2017.1294548 · Cited by 7
Seo, M. K., Kim, S. H., & Rhee, M. (2011) · Psychiatry Investigation · doi:10.4306/pi.2011.8.1.39 · Cited by 6
Tolerability, assessment, and prediction of psilocybin-induced altered states of consciousness
Studerus, E. (2012) · University of Zurich · doi:10.5167/uzh-164092 · Cited by 6
Elemo, A. S., & Türküm, A. S. (2022) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-020-00475-x · Cited by 6
Aune, I., Dahlberg, U., Backe, B., & Haugan, G. (2013) · Nordic Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/010740831303300304 · Cited by 5
Examining an Integrated Factor Structure of Schoolwide MTSS Implementation Measures
Santiago, R. T., Hall, G. J., Garbacz, S. A., Gulbrandson, K., & Albers, C. A. (2025) · Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions · doi:10.1177/10983007241249524 · Cited by 6
Li, S. N., Chien, W. T., Lam, S. K. K., Chong, Y. Y., & Gloster, A. T. (2026) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-024-06610-0 · Cited by 5
Kalina, E., Boyd-Frenkel, K., Patock-Peckham, J. A., Schneidewent, L., Broussard, M. L., & Leeman, R. F. (2023) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13020185 · Cited by 4
“3 [43], a structural equation model was evaluated with chi-square statistics, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) [44,45], Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) [46].”
MethodInfluentialVan Hout, E., Contreras, M., Mioshi, E., & Kishita, N. (2024) · Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.jbct.2023.12.001 · Cited by 4
ACT with Pain : measurement, efficacy and mechanisms of Acceptance & Commitment Therapy
Trompetter, H. (2014) · doi:10.3990/1.9789036537087 · Cited by 4
Li, S. N., Yang, L., Wang, Q. Y., Xie, J., Cao, H., Zhao, W., & Tang, S. Q. (2025) · Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · doi:10.1002/cpp.70067 · Cited by 4
Wanda, M., & Pasaribu, P. (2023) · Journal of Business, Management, and Social Studies · doi:10.53748/jbms.v2i3.46 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- ORCID
- Bentler, Peter M.
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 1998-12
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 424-453
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W2005092827
- Semantic Scholar
- a92c9726361d9c1d165dbf2ea781b6c48363a816
- Cited by
- 12,298
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 639 · 2025: 1003 · 2024: 1076 · 2023: 1094 · 2022: 934 · 2021: 884 · 2020: 738 · 2019: 665 · 2018: 600 · 2017: 512 · 2016: 465 · 2015: 450 · 2014: 474 · 2013: 433 · 2012: 386
- FWCI
- 43.57
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
- Keywords
- model fit indices, model misspecification, structural equation modeling, comparative fit index, RMSEA, asymptotic robustness, factor loadings, sample size, distributional assumptions
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