The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Best Practices in Structural Equation Modeling
Abstract
S tructural equation modeling (SEM) has evolved into a mature and popular methodology to investigate theory-derived structural/causal hypotheses. Indeed, with the continued development of SEM software packages such as AMOS (Arbuckle, 2007), EQS (Bentler, 2006), LISREL (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2006), and Mplus (Muthen & Muthen, 2006), SEM “has become the preeminent multivariate method of data analysis” (Hershberger, 2003, pp. 43–44). Yet, we believe that many practitioners still have little, if any, formal SEM background, potentially leading to misapplications and publications of questionable utility. Drawing on our own experiences as authors and reviewers of SEM studies, as well as on existing guides for reporting SEM results (e.g., Boomsma, 2000; Hoyle & Panter, 1995; McDonald & Ho, 2002), we offer a collection of best practices guidelines to those analysts and authors who contemplate using SEM to help answer their substantive research questions. Throughout, we assume that readers have at least some familiarity with the goals and language of SEM as covered in any introductory textbook (e.g., Byrne, 1998, 2001, 2006; Kline, 2005; Loehlin, 2004; Mueller, 1996; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). For those desiring even more in-depth or advanced knowledge, we recommend Bollen (1989), Kaplan (2000), or Hancock and Mueller (2006).
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
(1998) · Cited by 36,049
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,442
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Clogg, C. C., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1995) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2580595 · Cited by 8,211
A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling: Fourth Edition
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2015) · doi:10.4324/9781315749105 · Cited by 6,604
(2005) · Cited by 6,097
Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.64 · Cited by 4,734
Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Third Edition
Byrne, B. M. (2016) · doi:10.4324/9781315757421 · Cited by 4,653
Byrne, B. M. (1998) · Cited by 3,873
Cited by
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000191 · Cited by 1,449
The development of compassionate engagement and action scales for self and others
Gilbert, P., Catarino, F., Duarte, C., Matos, M., Kolts, R., Stubbs, J., Ceresatto, L., Duarte, J., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Basran, J. (2017) · Journal of Compassionate Health Care · doi:10.1186/s40639-017-0033-3 · Cited by 527
Maillet, É., Mathieu, L., & Sicotte, C. (2015) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.09.004 · Cited by 320
O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., & Jackson, R. (2017) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831217716767 · Cited by 292
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2018) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-017-9171-4 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R.
- Venue
- Best Practices in Quantitative Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications, Inc.
- Published
- 2008
- Pages
- 488-508
- OpenAlex
- W154739088
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 10.39
- Type
- book chapter
- 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: Best Practices in Structural Equation Modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4135/9781412995627.d38
- The paper
- Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). Best Practices in Structural Equation Modeling. Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995627.d38
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.