PsycEXTRA Dataset 2010
DOI: 10.1037/e518392013-131
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Allowing correlated errors in structural equation modeling: A meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
131
0
7

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 122 publications
(139 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
131
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…A review of the MIs indicated that respecifying the model according to the MIs to allow Errors 7 and 20 (MI = 114.36) to be freed could result in an improved model fit. This respecification was theoretically justified (Byrne, ; Hermida, ) and provided a reasonably improved fit with our data. We conducted a second‐order CFA because of high correlations between factors (Intrusion and Avoidance = .78, Avoidance and Hyperarousal = .83, and Intrusion and Hyperarousal = .94).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A review of the MIs indicated that respecifying the model according to the MIs to allow Errors 7 and 20 (MI = 114.36) to be freed could result in an improved model fit. This respecification was theoretically justified (Byrne, ; Hermida, ) and provided a reasonably improved fit with our data. We conducted a second‐order CFA because of high correlations between factors (Intrusion and Avoidance = .78, Avoidance and Hyperarousal = .83, and Intrusion and Hyperarousal = .94).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 72%
“…For each measurement model, we cautiously opted to allow some errors to be freed, after careful examination of the MIs as well as the assessment items that corresponded with the errors in question (Byrne, ). As cited by Hermida (), Landis and colleagues posited that estimation of measurement errors is appropriate only when correlations among measurement errors are unavoidable (e.g., when indicator variables share components). Therefore, we allowed for errors to be freed only when indicator variables shared components (e.g., there was a high degree of overlap in item content; items were essentially asking the same questions), which can trigger error covariances (Byrne, ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, there should be a low error correlation between items. Error correlation should be avoided (Hermida, ), as it indicates that variable covariance is not only explained by the latent construct but may have some other exogenous common cause or, more often, be due to very similar wording, indicating redundancy (Brown, ). Eliminating items with correlated errors also increases local independence—an assumption in IRT (Revicki, Chen, & Tucker, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As indicated by Furr (2011), post-hoc model's re-specification based upon statistical criterion with the sole purpose of improving model fit, rather than theoretically-justified changes, must be taken cautiously. Indeed, correlations between errors may indicate that the model is misspecified (Hermida, 2015). In particular, Landis, Edwards, and Cortina (2009) suggested that correlated errors may be the result of a common cause (e.g., third variable) that is not specified in the model.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%