The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance
Abstract
Measurement invariance is usually tested using Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis, which examines the change in the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) when cross-group constraints are imposed on a measurement model. Although many studies have examined the properties of GFI as indicators of overall model fit for single-group data, there have been none to date that examine how GFIs change when between-group constraints are added to a measurement model. The lack of a consensus about what constitutes significant GFI differences places limits on measurement invariance testing. We examine 20 GFIs based on the minimum fit function. A simulation under the two-group situation was used to examine changes in the GFIs (ΔGFIs) when invariance constraints were added. Based on the results, we recommend using Δcomparative fit index, ΔGamma hat, and ΔMcDonald's Noncentrality Index to evaluate measurement invariance. These three ΔGFIs are independent of both model complexity and sample size, and are not correlated with the overall fit measures. We propose critical values of these ΔGFIs that indicate measurement invariance.
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
“Values of both coefficients ≥ 0.70 were interpreted as acceptable indicators of reliability [60, 61].”
From Psychometric validation and measurement invariance of the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II in Honduran university students (2025) · cites this paper as [61]
In the citing paper
“An increase in the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) exceeding 0.01 suggests non-invariance and leads us to reject the model (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002; Chen, 2007).”
From Common Predictive Factors of Social Media Addiction and Eating Disorder Symptoms in Female College Students: State Anxiety and the Mediating Role of Cognitive Flexibility/Sustained Attention (2022) · cites this paper as Cheung and Rensvold, 2002
In the citing paper
“The results indicated that the Configural invariance model, the metric invariance model, the scalar invariance model, and the strict invariance model were reliable cross-gender (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002; Chen, 2007).”
From Measuring self-as-context in Chinese college students: Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of self-as-context scale (C-SACS) (2022) · cites this paper as Cheung and Rensvold, 2002
In the citing paper
“Like the chisquare, chi-square difference tests present a known sensitivity to sample size and minor model misspecifications so that recent studies suggest complementing this information with changes in CFIs and RMSEAs (Chen, 2007;Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) in the context of tests of measurement invariance.”
From A test of work motivation profile similarity across four distinct samples of employees (2020) · cites this paper as Cheung & Rensvold, 2002
In the citing paper
“The parsimonious model (constrained model) would be selected if the following four criteria suggested by Cheung and Rensvold (2002) and Chen (2007) were met: (a) the constrained model did not generate a significantly worse fit than the unconstrained model (the multiple-group baseline model) according to the chi-square test; (b) the difference in RMSEA ( RMSEA) was lower than .01;(c) the difference”
From Psychometric properties of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire in Colombia (2017) · cites this paper as Cheung and Rensvold (2002)
In the citing paper
“The difference in CFI values did not exceed 0.01 [45], indicating that invariance is supported and lending further support for the constrained model.”
From ADHD and the externalizing spectrum: direct comparison of categorical, continuous, and hybrid models of liability in a nationally representative sample (2014) · cites this paper as [45]
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
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
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
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442810031002 · Cited by 7,997
A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291170 · Cited by 7,330
LISREL 7 : user's reference guide
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 6,783
Akaike, H. (1987) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294359 · Cited by 5,264
Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross‐National Consumer Research
Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209528 · Cited by 4,760
Measurement Invariance, Factor Analysis and Factorial Invariance
Meredith, W. (1993) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294825 · Cited by 4,536
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456 · Cited by 4,105
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.105.3.456 · Cited by 4,074
Akaike, H. (1987) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_29 · Cited by 4,027
Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391 · Cited by 3,953
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562 · Cited by 3,419
Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models
Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.2307/270754 · Cited by 3,147
A New Incremental Fit Index for General Structural Equation Models
Bollen, K. A. (1989) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124189017003004 · Cited by 3,008
Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Alstine, J. V., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430 · Cited by 2,927
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. (1984) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294170 · Cited by 1,775
Single Sample Cross-Validation Indices for Covariance Structures
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. A. (1989) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2404_4 · Cited by 1,688
The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-Fit Indices
HOELTER, J. W. (1983) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124183011003003 · Cited by 1,624
A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research
Horn, J. L., & Mcardle, J. J. (1992) · Experimental Aging Research · doi:10.1080/03610739208253916 · Cited by 1,592
Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit.
McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.247 · Cited by 1,485
Little, T. D. (1997) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3 · Cited by 1,446
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.552 · Cited by 1,252
Causal Analysis: Assumptions, Models, and Data
Schriesheim, C. A., James, L. R., Muliak, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1984) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258244 · Cited by 1,240
Monte Carlo Evaluations of Goodness of Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models
GERBING, D. W., & ANDERSON, J. C. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002002 · Cited by 1,046
Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research.
Mullen, M. R. (1995) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490187 · Cited by 863
Cross-Validation Of Covariance Structures
Cudeck, R. A., & Browne, M. W. (1983) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr1802_2 · Cited by 857
Item Parceling Strategies in SEM: Investigating the Subtle Effects of Unmodeled Secondary Constructs
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819923002 · Cited by 710
Sample Size Effects on Chi Square and Other Statistics Used in Evaluating Causal Models
Bearden, W. O., Sharma, S., & Teel, J. E. (1982) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151716 · Cited by 610
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022100031002003 · Cited by 603
Self-citationMeasurement Issues in Cross-National Research
Singh, J. (1995) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490188 · Cited by 520
New measures of job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility.
Jackson, P. R., Wall, T. D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.753 · Cited by 515
Structural equation modelling in perspective
Kelloway, E. K. (1995) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.4030160304 · Cited by 495
On the Multivariate Asymptotic Distribution of Sequential Chi-Square Statistics
Steiger, J. H., Shapiro, A., & Browne, M. W. (1985) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294104 · Cited by 482
Sample Size and Bentler and Bonett's Nonnormed Fit Index
Bollen, K. A. (1986) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294061 · Cited by 390
Riordan, C. M., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1994) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/0149-2063(94)90007-8 · Cited by 373
Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling
Brannick, M. Τ. (1995) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.4030160303 · Cited by 350
Byrne, B. M. (1994) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2903_5 · Cited by 327
Equivalence of psychological measurement in heterogeneous populations.
Drasgow, F., & Kanfer, R. (1985) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.4.662 · Cited by 327
An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality
McDonald, R. P. (1989) · Journal of Classification · doi:10.1007/bf01908590 · Cited by 312
Organizations and National Culture: Methodology Considered
Tayeb, M. (1994) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069401500306 · Cited by 289
The Multidimensional Structure of Academic Self-Concept: Invariance Over Gender and Age
Marsh, H. W. (1993) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312030004841 · Cited by 276
Model selection in covariance structures analysis and the "problem" of sample size: A clarification.
Cudeck, R. A., & Henly, S. J. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.512 · Cited by 239
CONFIRMATORY CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH: TESTING THE VIABILITY OF A CORPORATION-WIDE SAFETY POLICY.
Janssens, M., Brett, J., & Smith, F. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256684 · Cited by 168
la Du, T. J., & Tanaka, J. S. (1989) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.625 · Cited by 163
Cudeck, R. A., & Browne, M. W. (1992) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02295424 · Cited by 148
Pentz, M. A., & Chou, C. (1994) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.62.3.450 · Cited by 113
Theory and method in cross-cultural psychology.
Malpass, R. S. (1977) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.32.12.1069 · Cited by 111
Alpha, beta, and gamma change in evaluation research: A structural equation approach.
Millsap, R. E., & Hartog, S. B. (1988) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.574 · Cited by 106
Confirmatory Measurement Model Comparisons Using Latent Means
Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1991) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_6 · Cited by 90
CROSS‐CULTURAL COMPARABILITY OF TEMPERAMENT AMONG JAPANESE AND AMERICAN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN
Windle, M. T., Iwawaki, S., & Lerner, R. M. (1988) · International Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00207598808247785 · Cited by 56
Detecting cross-cultural commonalities and differences: Intergroup factor analysis.
Buss, A. R., & Royce, J. R. (1975) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0076156 · Cited by 53
Suzuki, S., & Rancer, A. S. (1994) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637759409376336 · Cited by 47
Model selection in covariance structures analysis and the "problem" of sample size: A clarification.
Cudeck, R. A., & Henly, S. J. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.109.3.512 · Cited by 23
Contributions of ability and attainment testing in Africa to a general theory of intellect
Irvine, S. H. (1969) · Journal of Biosocial Science · doi:10.1017/s0021932000023245 · Cited by 22
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In K. G. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Part 1, pp. 149-173). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
- 10.1037//0021-9010.70.4.662 · DOI
- 10.1037//0021-9010.78.5.753 · DOI
- 10.1037//0021-9010.74.4.625 · DOI
- 10.2307/1163206 · DOI
- 10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.391 · DOI
- 10.1037//0021-9010.73.3.574 · DOI
- 10.1037//0033-2909.114.3.552 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance
Chen, F. F. (2007) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705510701301834 · Cited by 12,217
The standards for educational and psychological testing.
Eignor, D. R. (2013) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/14047-013 · Cited by 6,985
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 · Cited by 4,369
“A uthor M anuscript A uthor M anuscript A uthor M anuscript A uthor M anuscript indices and criteria should be used to judge “practical” differences in model fit between groups (e.g., Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here.
McNeish, D. (2018) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000144 · Cited by 2,533
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011 · Cited by 2,397
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B.
- Affiliations
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- City University of Hong Kong (HK)
- ORCID
- Cheung, Gordon W.
- Venue
- Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 233-255
- ISSN
- 1070-5511 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8007
- OpenAlex
- W2089871805
- Cited by
- 16,280
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1791 · 2025: 1391 · 2024: 1235 · 2023: 1334 · 2022: 1220 · 2021: 1260 · 2020: 1112 · 2019: 1016 · 2018: 935 · 2017: 829 · 2016: 756 · 2015: 695 · 2014: 595 · 2013: 522 · 2012: 396
- FWCI
- 42.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University Grants Committee
- 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
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- measurement invariance, goodness of fit index, multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, comparative fit index, critical values, simulation study
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
