Cited by 1,725Psychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and ApplicationsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument

Byrne, Barbara M.·2001·International Journal of Testing

Abstract

Using a confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) model as a paradigmatic basis for all comparisons, this article reviews and contrasts important features related to 3 of the most widely-used structural equation modeling (SEM) computer programs: AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle, 1999), EQS 6 (Bentler, 2000), and LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996b). Comparisons focus on (a) key aspects of the programs that bear on the specification and testing of CFA models-preliminary analysis of data, and model specification, estimation, assessment, and misspecification; and (b) other important issues that include treatment of incomplete, nonnormally-distributed, or categorically-scaled data. It is expected that this comparative review will provide readers with at least a flavor of the approach taken by each program with respect to both the application of SEM within the framework of a CFA model, and the critically important issues, previously noted, related to data under study.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327574ijt0101_4

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The structural equation model fit the data well (CMIN/df = 1.520, GFI, AGFI, NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI, and CFI all above 0.9, RMSEA = 0.033, Standardized RMR = 0.035).

    “In the structural equation model verification, CMIN was 814.554, CMIN/df was 1.520, GFI, AGFI, NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI, and CFI were all above 0.9, RMSEA was 0.033, less than 0.08, Standardized RMR was 0.035, less than 0.05 [76]. Almost all the fitting indexes were in line with the standards of a general structural equation model, and therefore, the model fits well [74].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Byrne, B. M.
Affiliations
University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Byrne, Barbara M.
Venue
International Journal of Testing
Published
2001-03
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
55-86
ISSN
  • 1530-5058 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7574
OpenAlex
W2061869679
Cited by
1,725
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 101 · 2025: 157 · 2024: 192 · 2023: 168 · 2022: 183 · 2021: 153 · 2020: 150 · 2019: 113 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 90 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 27
FWCI
3.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Testing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
Amos, EQS, LISREL, confirmatory factor analysis, factorial validity, measurement instrument validation, model misspecification, non-normal data, categorical data, missing data, model estimation

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