1992
DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2702_13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automated Fitting of Nonstandard Models

Abstract: A method for automated parameter estimation and testing of fit of nonstandard models for mean vectors and covariance matrices is described. Nonlinear equality and inequality constraints on the parameters of the model are allowed for. All the user will need to provide are subroutines to evaluate the mean vector and covariance matrix according to the model and, if required, the constraint functions. Subroutines for derivatives need not be provided. Some applications are described.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
115
0
2

Year Published

1995
1995
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 140 publications
(125 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
3
115
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A confidence interval including 0.05 means that the two models are close in misfit. In this case, although there is a significant difference in fit between the two models, we can say that they fit the data almost equally well (Browne & DuToit, 1992). When not controlling for age we obtained a cRMSEA of 0.098 with a 95% CI of [0.080-0.117].…”
Section: Multivariate Lgmsmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…A confidence interval including 0.05 means that the two models are close in misfit. In this case, although there is a significant difference in fit between the two models, we can say that they fit the data almost equally well (Browne & DuToit, 1992). When not controlling for age we obtained a cRMSEA of 0.098 with a 95% CI of [0.080-0.117].…”
Section: Multivariate Lgmsmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…According to Ying and Fan (2003), increasing the constraints on a model leads to poorer model fit and, therefore, the different constraint models studied should be compared with a baseline model in order to assess the effect of these invariance constraints on the fit/misfit model. In this context other authors such as Browne and Du Toit (1992) and Cheung and Rensvold (2002) have suggested, respectively, using the root deterioration per restriction (RDR) statistic and changes in the comparative fit index (CFI).…”
Section: Hypothesis Ii: Testing For the Invariant Pattern Of Factor Lmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We propose using one step of the Fisher-Scoring algorithm with step-halving (see e.g., Lee & Jennrich, 1979). This gives a point that satisfies (9). Our choice of the Fisher-scoring step is also motivated by the fact that existing programs and recent theoretical discussions (see e.g., …”
Section: The Em and Gem Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A summary of this statistical theory can be found, for example, in Satorra (1992) and Browne and Arminger (1995). Effective computational procedures for implementing this theory exist in various standard computer programs such as EQS (Bentler, 1995), LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1988), MECOSA (Schepers & Arminger, 1992), and SEPATH (Steiger, 1994), and have recently been discussed by Arminger (1994), Browne and Du Toit (1992), and Cudeck, Klebe, and Henly (1993).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%