2012
DOI: 10.1524/9783486714807
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strukturgleichungsmodelle mit Mplus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
30
0
18

Year Published

2013
2013
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
30
0
18
Order By: Relevance
“…The semi-restricted model yielded good fit indices as well (see Table 3). A χ 2 -difference test (Christ & Schlüter, 2012;Yuan & Bentler, 2004), conducted to compare the unrestricted model to the semi-restricted model, did not reach significance (χ 2 (26) = 18.75, p = .85). This result confirms measurement invariance and allows for group comparison, suggesting that the semi-restricted multi-group model fits the data not worse than the unrestricted model (Satorra & Bentler, 2001).…”
Section: Multi-group Structural Equation Modelingmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The semi-restricted model yielded good fit indices as well (see Table 3). A χ 2 -difference test (Christ & Schlüter, 2012;Yuan & Bentler, 2004), conducted to compare the unrestricted model to the semi-restricted model, did not reach significance (χ 2 (26) = 18.75, p = .85). This result confirms measurement invariance and allows for group comparison, suggesting that the semi-restricted multi-group model fits the data not worse than the unrestricted model (Satorra & Bentler, 2001).…”
Section: Multi-group Structural Equation Modelingmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The indices indicated a good fit for the unrestricted and the semi-restricted model. Subsequently, both models were compared with a χ 2 -difference test (Christ & Schlüter, 2012;Yuan & Bentler, 2004). The test did not reach significance (χ 2 (26) = 30.08, p = .27).…”
Section: Multi-group Structural Equation Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Chi‐square testing is not used in this analysis for two reasons: The first reason is the sensitivity of the chi‐square test to the sample size. Secondly, being a very conservative model‐fit test, chi‐square results in a refusal of the H1 hypothesis even if the discrepancy between the model covariance matrix and the estimated population covariance matrix is negligible (Christ & Schlüter, ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used a rescaling-based robust estimator MLR in MPlus as recommended by Wang and Wang (2012) to deal with skewness and kurtosis in our data and obtain robust estimates. Measurement errors of the repeated measures at t1 and t2 (self-esteem, career aspirations) were allowed to correlate as recommended for autoregressive models (Christ and Schlüter, 2012). To assess the adequacy of the measurement model, we refer to the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA).…”
Section: Descriptive Statistics and Measurement Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%