The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Thorny Relation Between Measurement Quality and Fit Index Cutoffs in Latent Variable Models
Abstract
Latent variable modeling is a popular and flexible statistical framework. Concomitant with fitting latent variable models is assessment of how well the theoretical model fits the observed data. Although firm cutoffs for these fit indexes are often cited, recent statistical proofs and simulations have shown that these fit indexes are highly susceptible to measurement quality. For instance, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value of 0.06 (conventionally thought to indicate good fit) can actually indicate poor fit with poor measurement quality (e.g., standardized factors loadings of around 0.40). Conversely, an RMSEA value of 0.20 (conventionally thought to indicate very poor fit) can indicate acceptable fit with very high measurement quality (standardized factor loadings around 0.90). Despite the wide-ranging effect on applications of latent variable models, the high level of technical detail involved with this phenomenon has curtailed the exposure of these important findings to empirical researchers who are employing these methods. This article briefly reviews these methodological studies in minimal technical detail and provides a demonstration to easily quantify the large influence measurement quality has on fit index values and how greatly the cutoffs would change if they were derived under an alternative level of measurement quality. Recommendations for best practice are also discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5 · Cited by 16,280
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2 · Cited by 6,691
Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit
Barrett, P. (2007) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018 · Cited by 2,611
On making causal claims: A review and recommendations
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010 · Cited by 2,441
Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling
Steiger, J. H. (2007) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017 · Cited by 2,360
(1993) · Cited by 2,269
Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0014694 · Cited by 2,242
Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124108314720 · Cited by 1,538
Cited by
Thinking twice about sum scores
McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. G. (2020) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01398-0 · Cited by 592
Self-citationDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience using latent change score models: A tutorial and applications
Kievit, R. A., Brandmaier, A. M., Ziegler, G., van Harmelen, A.-L., de Mooij, S. M. M., Moutoussis, M., Goodyer, I. M., Bullmore, E., Jones, P. B., Fonagy, P., et al. (2018) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2017.11.007 · Cited by 516
Swami, V., & Barron, D. (2019) · Body Image · doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.014 · Cited by 454
Evaluating SEM Model Fit with Small Degrees of Freedom
Shi, D., DiStefano, C., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Lee, T. (2022) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2020.1868965 · Cited by 256
Gaudreau, P., Schellenberg, B. J. I., Gareau, A., Kljajic, K., & Manoni-Millar, S. (2022) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000411 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- McNeish, D., An, J., & Hancock, G. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality Assessment
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-03-02
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-52
- ISSN
- 0022-3891 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7752
- OpenAlex
- W2624275649
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 41
- FWCI
- 22.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Thorny Relation Between Measurement Quality and Fit Index Cutoffs in Latent Variable Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286
- The paper
- McNeish, D., An, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2018). The Thorny Relation Between Measurement Quality and Fit Index Cutoffs in Latent Variable Models. Journal of Personality Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
