1995
DOI: 10.1300/j079v20n03_03
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of Sample Size on Goodness-Fit of-Fit Indices in Structural Equation Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
47
0
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
47
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Among the absolute indicators, the  2 /df value is frequently used as a primary measure of fit, which should be close to unity for correct models, although Wheaton, Muthén, Alwin, and Summers (1977) considered that values up to three are acceptable. However, this index is known to be adversely affected by large samples (Yadama & Pandey, 1995) as in the present study. When the analysis of the final model was repeated on a smaller, randomly chosen sample of 200 participants, the  2 /df value fell to 2.42, which is within the range considered to indicate an adequate correspondence between the model and data.…”
Section: Confirmatory Factor Analysismentioning
confidence: 61%
“…Among the absolute indicators, the  2 /df value is frequently used as a primary measure of fit, which should be close to unity for correct models, although Wheaton, Muthén, Alwin, and Summers (1977) considered that values up to three are acceptable. However, this index is known to be adversely affected by large samples (Yadama & Pandey, 1995) as in the present study. When the analysis of the final model was repeated on a smaller, randomly chosen sample of 200 participants, the  2 /df value fell to 2.42, which is within the range considered to indicate an adequate correspondence between the model and data.…”
Section: Confirmatory Factor Analysismentioning
confidence: 61%
“…Because therapists only rated their own sessions, interrater reliability was not determined. A confirmatory factor analysis using structural models with AMOS (6.0) software (Arbuckle, 2005) with maximum likelihood estimation showed the two-factor model demonstrated a good fit to the data, namely, a Root Square Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of .05 or less (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and the Normed Fit Index (NFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of .90 or greater (Hu and Bentler, 1995; Kline, 1998; Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988; Yadama & Pandey, 1995). The respective fundamental and advanced strategies fit indices were as follows: RMSEA = .06 and .00 ; NFI = .98 and 1.0; IFI = .99 and 1.0; and CFI = .99 and 1.0.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All factors were allowed to correlate, and no correlated errors were included in the estimation models. In order to evaluate the fit of the models, observed model covariances were compared with the null hypothesis model (Yadama and Pandey 1995). Fit of any model was assessed by a non-significant χ 2 , incremental fit index (IFI; Bollen 1989) ≥0.90, normalized fit index (NFI; Bentler and Bonett 1980;Marsh et al 1988) ≥0.80, non-normalized fit index (NNFI; Bentler and Bonett 1980) ≥0.90, comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler 1990) ≥0.90, standardized root mean square of errors <0.10 (SRMR; Marsh et al 1988), and root mean square error approximation (RMSEA ;Steiger 1990;Bentler and Bonett 1980;Marsh et al 1988) <0.10.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%