2017
DOI: 10.22237/jmasm/1493597040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Limitations in the systematic analysis of structural equation model fit indices

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of selected fit index statistics in determining model fit in structural equation modeling (SEM). The results indicated a large dependency on correlation magnitude of the input correlation matrix, with mixed results when the correlation magnitudes were low and a primary indication of good model fit. This was due to the default SEM method of Maximum Likelihood that assumes unstandardized correlation values. However, this warning is not well-known, and is … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The authors of the study are aware that developing a loyalty model using structural equation models (SEM) has its limitations. In numerous studies (see e.g., [68][69][70][71][72][73][74]), both weaknesses and limitations of structural equation models were identified, among which the following should be listed: errors caused by disregarding important variables, difficulties in the specification and modification of SEM models, problems in understanding the role of the null hypothesis and equivalence in SEM models, problems resulting from multicollinearity, limitations in the systematic analysis of SEM fit indices, and theoretical and philosophical controversies related to the usefulness of the SEM model.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors of the study are aware that developing a loyalty model using structural equation models (SEM) has its limitations. In numerous studies (see e.g., [68][69][70][71][72][73][74]), both weaknesses and limitations of structural equation models were identified, among which the following should be listed: errors caused by disregarding important variables, difficulties in the specification and modification of SEM models, problems in understanding the role of the null hypothesis and equivalence in SEM models, problems resulting from multicollinearity, limitations in the systematic analysis of SEM fit indices, and theoretical and philosophical controversies related to the usefulness of the SEM model.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, although the results can be considered representative for the teaching population of Europe and North and South America, considering the absence of statistically significant differences by regions, the results, and conclusions of this study cannot be extrapolated to a worldwide population (Olejnik, 1984). Additionally, although the results in terms of reliability and goodness-and badness-of-fit indices were correct for several authors, the most demanding researchers in the field may consider them improvable (Rose et al, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The results in Table show that the values of the exact model fit indices (SRMR = 0.085; dULS = 0.658; dG1 = 0.204; dG2 = 0.185) are smaller than their corresponding upper limits of 95% and 99% confidence intervals indicating a good model fit (Henseler et al, ). In addition, although the value of approximate fit index SRMR is greater than the more conservative threshold of 0.08 (e.g., Henseler et al, ), it is less than 0.09 which is ‘a maximum allowable value’ for showing a good model fit (Hu and Bentler, ; Rose et al, , p. 74). Taken together, the analytic model cannot be rejected.…”
Section: Analysis and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%