0
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Improved Goodness of Fit Procedures for Structural Equation Models

Received 17 Apr 2024, Accepted 20 Jun 2024, Published online: 23 Jul 2024

Figures & data

Figure 1. Population and estimated eigenvalues for a ten-dimensional CFA with 34 degrees of freedom. The × represent population eigenvalues, while the boxplots represent estimated eigenvalues across 200 replications at sample size n = 1500.

Figure 1. Population and estimated eigenvalues for a ten-dimensional CFA with 34 degrees of freedom. The × represent population eigenvalues, while the boxplots represent estimated eigenvalues across 200 replications at sample size n = 1500.

Figure 2. The sorted simulated data plotted against i/d for i=1,2,,d. the curve in red is the theoretical quantile function. The curve in blue is the empirical quantile function. The dotted black values are the levels of the observations.

Figure 2. The sorted simulated data plotted against i/d for i=1,2,…,d. the curve in red is the theoretical quantile function. The curve in blue is the empirical quantile function. The dotted black values are the levels of the observations.

Figure 3. Estimated eigenvalues and associated weights for EBA and regression procedures. EBA2 = 2-block EBA, pEBA2 = penalized 2-block EBA, pOLS = penalized regression, SB = Satorra–Bentler.

Figure 3. Estimated eigenvalues and associated weights for EBA and regression procedures. EBA2 = 2-block EBA, pEBA2 = penalized 2-block EBA, pOLS = penalized regression, SB = Satorra–Bentler.

Table 1. Type I Error rates, normal data.

Table 2. Test performance across 6 non-normal distributions and 4 sample sizes, ranked in increasing RMSE order.

Table 3. Top ten robustified tests according to RMSE when aggregating 6 non-normal distributions, 4 sample sizes and 3 model sizes.

Figure 4. Rejection rates in % for six selected tests. Panel columns and rows correspond to model size and distribution, respectively.

Figure 4. Rejection rates in % for six selected tests. Panel columns and rows correspond to model size and distribution, respectively.

Table 4. Rejection rate in % for the bollen–stine bootstrap.

Table 5. Rejection rate in % for the EBAd test procedure, aggregated over all seven distributions.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material

Download PDF (252.2 KB)