The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes
Abstract
A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted to investigate the effects on structural equation modeling (SEM) fit indexes of sample size, estimation method, and model specification. Based on a balanced experimental design, samples were generated from a prespecified population covariance matrix and fitted to structural equation models with different degrees of model misspecification. Ten SEM fit indexes were studied. Two primary conclusions were suggested: (a) some fit indexes appear to be noncomparable in terms of the information they provide about model fit for misspecified models and (b) estimation method strongly influenced almost all the fit indexes examined, especially for misspecified models. These 2 issues do not seem to have drawn enough attention from SEM practitioners. Future research should study not only different models vis‐à‐vis model complexity, but a wider range of model specification conditions, including correctly specified models and models specified incorrectly to varying degrees.
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
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
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 19,023
Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach
Steiger, J. H. (1990) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 · Cited by 7,408
Cited by
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003) · Department of Psychology - University of Koblenz-Landau · doi:10.23668/psycharchives.12784 · Cited by 8,975
Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008) · Dublin Institute of Technology · doi:10.21427/d7cf7r · Cited by 8,746
Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006) · The Counseling Psychologist · doi:10.1177/0011000006288127 · Cited by 4,087
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications.
Thompson, B. (2004) · doi:10.1037/10694-000 · Cited by 3,469
Self-citationReporting 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L.
- Venue
- Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-83
- ISSN
- 1070-5511 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8007
- OpenAlex
- W2072787586
- Cited by
- 1,663
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 21.70
- 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: Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10705519909540119
- The paper
- Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540119
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.
