Principles for reporting analyses using structural equation modeling are reviewed, with the goal of supplying readers with complete and accurate information. It is recommended that every report give a detailed justification of the model used, along with plausible alternatives and an account of identifiability. Nonnormality and missing data problems should also be addressed. A complete set of parameters and their standard errors is desirable, and it will often be convenient to supply the correlation matrix and discrepancies, as well as goodness-of-fit indices, so that readers can exercise independent critical judgment. A survey of fairly representative studies compares recent practice with the principles of reporting recommended here.Structural equation modeling (SEM), also known as path analysis with latent variables, is now a regularly used method for representing dependency (arguably "causal") relations in multivariate data in the behavioral and social sciences. Following the seminal work of Jöreskog (1973), a number of models for linear structural relations have been developed (Bentler & Weeks, 1980;Lohmoller, 1981;McDonald, 1978), and work continues on these. Commercial statistical packages include LISREL (Jöreskog & Sör-bom, 1989, 1996, EQS (Bentler, 1985(Bentler, , 1995, CALIS (Hartmann, 1992), MPLUS (Muthén & Muthén, 1998), RAMONA (Browne, Mels, & Cowan, 1994), SEPATH (Steiger, 1995), and AMOS (Arbuckle, 1997). Available freeware includes COSAN (Fraser & McDonald, 1988) and Mx (Neale, 1997). McArdle and McDonald (1984) proved that different matrix formulations of a path model with latent variables are essentially equivalent. Programs such as those listed supply essentially the same basic information, with minor variations in the details supplied. Thus, the eight parameter LISREL model, which arose out of the work of Keesling and Wiley (see Wiley, 1973) and was subsequently developed to its current state by Jöreskog (see Jöreskog and Sör-bom, 1996), the four-matrix model of Lohmoller (1981), the three-matrix EQS model of Bentler and Weeks (1980), and the two-matrix RAM model (see McArdle & McDonald, 1984) rearrange the same set of parameters. Not surprisingly-and perhaps not regrettably-user guides and texts on this topic are not in agreement in their recommendations about the style of presentation of results (e.g., see Bollen, 1989;Loehlin, 1992;Long, 1983aLong, , 1983b. There is even less agreement in the form of the results actually reported in articles on applications.It would be immodest for any journal article to offer a code of practice for the presentation of SEM results. It could also be counterproductive. (We note that for a long time there was a uniformly accepted convention for the publication of analysis of variance, or ANOVA results: the standard ANOVA table and the table of cell means. The near-disappearance of this from journals is regrettable.) Sound guidelines for the reporting of SEM results have been offered previously