The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses.
Abstract
Principles for reporting analyses using structural equation modeling are reviewed, with the goal of supplying readers with complete and accurate information. It is recommended that every report give a detailed justification of the model used, along with plausible alternatives and an account of identifiability. Nonnormality and missing data problems should also be addressed. A complete set of parameters and their standard errors is desirable, and it will often be convenient to supply the correlation matrix and discrepancies, as well as goodness-of-fit indices, so that readers can exercise independent critical judgment. A survey of fairly representative studies compares recent practice with the principles of reporting recommended here.
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
“The final valid questionnaires of this study were 219 cases, which satisfied the minimum requirement of the sample size of 200 people for structural equation modelling (McDonald and Ho 2002).”
From The Relationship Between Knowledge, Psychological Flexibility, Anxiety and Healthy Behaviour in Stroke Patients: A Chain Mediation Model. (2026) · cites this paper as McDonald and Ho 2002
In the citing paper
“Good model fit is indicated by χ ²/df below three, CFI and NNFI values greater than .90, and RMSEA and SRMR below .08 (Hu and Bentler 1999; McDonald and Ho 2002).”
From Awareness Versus Un-Clinging: Which Matters in Mindfulness? (2017) · cites this paper as McDonald and Ho 2002
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data Via the EM Algorithm
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x · Cited by 50,444
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Alternative 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
Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
Rubin, D. B. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316696 · Cited by 20,701
Significance 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
Structural Equations with Latent Variables
Bollen, K. A. (1989) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118619179 · Cited by 17,944
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,475
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Arbuckle, 1997, Amos user's guide.
- Bentler, 1985, Theory and implementation of EQS: A structural equations program.
- Bentler, 1995, EQS structural equations programs manual.
- Hartmann, 1992, The CALIS procedure: Extended user's guide.
- Joreskog, 1996, LISREL 8: Users' reference guide.
- Lohmoller, 1981, LVPLS 1.6 program manual: Latent variables path analysis with partial least squares estimation.
- Mooijaart, 1993, Structural equation models with transformed variables., 249
- Muthen, 1998, Mplus user's guide.
- Neale, 1997, Mx: Statistical modeling
- Satorra, 1994, Corrections to standard errors in covariance structure analysis., 399
- Steiger, 1995, SEPATH: STATISTICA version 5.
- West, 1995, Structural equation models with non-normal variables., 56
- Wiley, 1973, The identification problem for structural equation models with unmeasured variables., 69
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,024 of 1,024
Gibbons, A. M., von Thaden, T. L., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2006) · International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap1602_6 · Cited by 48
“Models are usually considered to fit well when the chi-square value is nonsignificant compared to the degrees of freedom; the RMSEA is below .10; and the NFI, TLI, and RNI are above .90 (McDonald & Ho, 2002).”
MethodFabris, M. A., Lin, S., & Longobardi, C. (2023) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2023.101227 · Cited by 46
“…used to evaluate the overall goodness-of-fit included the (a) chi-square statistic, (b) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.08; McDonald & Ho, 2002), (c) Comparative Fit Index (CFI ≥ 0.90; Bentler, 1992), and (d) Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR ≤ 0.08; Hu &…”
InfluentialRossi, A. A., Marconi, M., Taccini, F., Verusio, C., & Mannarini, S. (2021) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs11060087 · Cited by 41
An, Y., Yuan, G., Zhang, N., Xu, W., Liu, Z., & Zhou, F. (2018) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.034 · Cited by 40
Testing Spearman's hypotheses using a bi-factor model with WAIS-IV/WMS-IV standardization data
Frisby, C. L., & Beaujean, A. A. (2015) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.04.007 · Cited by 39
Cockcroft, K., Alloway, T., Copello, E., & Milligan, R. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00297 · Cited by 39
“RMSEA and SRMR values below 0.05 indicate a good fit, values between 0.08 and 0.10 indicate a mediocre fit, and values above 0.10 indicate a poor fit (McDonald and Ho, 2002).”
InfluentialYu, W., Chen, J., Sun, S., Liu, P., Ouyang, L., & Hu, J. (2021) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5667 · Cited by 40
Cassidy, A. R. (2016) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2014.994484 · Cited by 37
Becker, S. P., Webb, K. L., & Dvorsky, M. R. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1080/15374416.2019.1630836 · Cited by 39
“Model fit was assessed with the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) given that chi-square is known to be sensitive to sample size (McDonald & Ho, 2002).”
MethodNadlifatin, R., Lin, S.-C., Rachmaniati, Y., Persada, S., & Razif, M. (2016) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su8111165 · Cited by 51
Adolescent suicide risk and experiences of dissociation in daily life
Vine, V., Victor, S. E., Mohr, H., Byrd, A. L., & Stepp, S. D. (2020) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112870 · Cited by 36
Types of Social Connectedness and Loneliness: the Joint Moderating Effects of Age and Gender
Ang, C.-S. (2016) · Applied Research in Quality of Life · doi:10.1007/s11482-015-9428-5 · Cited by 30
Hawley, L. L., Rogojanski, J., Vorstenbosch, V., Quilty, L. C., Laposa, J. M., & Rector, N. A. (2017) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2017.03.003 · Cited by 31
Jeon, G.-S., You, S.-J., Kim, M.-G., Kim, Y.-M., & Cho, S.-I. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221323 · Cited by 27
Hogue, A., Dauber, S., & Henderson, C. E. (2014) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-012-0442-8 · Cited by 25
“RMSEA values of .06 and below and CFI values of .95 and above indicate strong model fit, and CFI C .90 and RMSEA B .08 indicate adequate fit (Browne and Cudeck 1993; McDonald and Ho 2002).”
MethodHsiao, Y.-Y., Tofighi, D., Kruger, E. S., Lee Van Horn, M., MacKinnon, D. P., & Witkiewitz, K. (2019) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-018-1023-z · Cited by 23
Lin, C.-Y., Lin, C.-K., Imani, V., Griffiths, M. D., & Pakpour, A. H. (2020) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-019-00124-y · Cited by 17
Fang, S., Huang, M., & Wang, Y. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1051661 · Cited by 12
“80 were considered an acceptable fit (McDonald and Ho, 2002).”
Heym, N., Ferguson, E., & Lawrence, C. (2013) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.001 · Cited by 12
Becker, A. B. C., Maurer, J., Daseking, M., & Pauls, F. (2024) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence12010006 · Cited by 11
“The evaluation of each measurement invariance model was based on a preselected set of model fit indexes in order to overcome the limitations of each single index (see Kline 2016; McDonald and Ho 2002; Thompson 2000, for an overview).”
MethodAwareness Versus Un-Clinging: Which Matters in Mindfulness?
Ng, S.-M., Chow, K. W., Lau, H. P., & Wang, Q. (2017) · Contemporary Buddhism · doi:10.1080/14639947.2017.1374326 · Cited by 8
“Good model fit is indicated by χ²/df below three, CFI and NNFI values greater than .90, and RMSEA and SRMR below .08 (Hu and Bentler 1999; McDonald and Ho 2002).”
MethodChen, H., Zhu, J., Liao, Y.-K., & Keith, T. Z. (2020) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/0734282920930542 · Cited by 8
“Multiple indices of model fit were used to evaluate and compare the models (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hoyle & Panter, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999; Kline, 2016; Marsh et al., 1988; McDonald & Ho, 2002).”
MethodGong, W., & Xu, C. (2024) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/21582440241293327 · Cited by 8
“…is close to x 2 / df = 2 (Ullman, 2001), RMSEA = 0.065, although the strict standard is greater than 0.05, it can still be accepted if below 0.8 (McDonald & Ho, 2002), GFI is 0.796, which does not reach the standard of 0.900, but Bollen (1990) proposed that GFI and AGFI will be underestimated…”
InfluentialMa, R., Qiao, M., Zhou, Y., Sun, W., Lv, Y., Zhou, X., Wang, Y., Wu, X., & Yu, R. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.17820 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- ORCID
- Ho, Moon-Ho Ringo
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 64-82
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W2134368355
- Cited by
- 4,734
- References
- 102
- Citations by year
- 2026: 176 · 2025: 300 · 2024: 313 · 2023: 336 · 2022: 348 · 2021: 323 · 2020: 327 · 2019: 289 · 2018: 236 · 2017: 236 · 2016: 206 · 2015: 202 · 2014: 198 · 2013: 208 · 2012: 185
- FWCI
- 58.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- structural equation modeling, reporting guidelines, model justification, model identifiability, non-normality, missing data, goodness-of-fit indices, standard errors, correlation matrix, model mismatch, critical appraisal
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Models, Psychological, Research Design, Linear Models
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
