This study introduces the statistical theory of using the Standardized Root Mean Squared Error (SRMR) to test close fit in ordinal factor analysis. We also compare the accuracy of confidence intervals (CIs) and tests of close fit based on the Standardized Root Mean Squared Error (SRMR) with those obtained based on the Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA). We use Unweighted Least Squares (ULS) estimation with a mean and variance corrected test statistic. The current (biased) implementation for the RMSEA never rejects that a model fits closely when data are binary and almost invariably rejects the model in large samples if data consist of five categories. The unbiased RMSEA produces better rejection rates, but it is only accurate enough when the number of variables is small (e.g., p = 10) and the degree of misfit is small. In contrast, across all simulated conditions, the tests of close fit based on the SRMR yield acceptable type I error rates. SRMR tests of close fit are also more powerful than those using the unbiased RMSEA.
more »
« less
The Effect of Estimation Methods on SEM Fit Indices
We examined the effect of estimation methods, maximum likelihood (ML), unweighted least squares (ULS), and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS), on three population SEM (structural equation modeling) fit indices: the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). We considered different types and levels of misspecification in factor analysis models: misspecified dimensionality, omitting cross-loadings, and ignoring residual correlations. Estimation methods had substantial impacts on the RMSEA and CFI so that different cutoff values need to be employed for different estimators. In contrast, SRMR is robust to the method used to estimate the model parameters. The same criterion can be applied at the population level when using the SRMR to evaluate model fit, regardless of the choice of estimation method.
more » « less- Award ID(s):
- 1659936
- PAR ID:
- 10545810
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Volume:
- 80
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 0013-1644
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 421-445
- Size(s):
- p. 421-445
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Model fit indices are being increasingly recommended and used to select the number of factors in an exploratory factor analysis. Growing evidence suggests that the recommended cutoff values for common model fit indices are not appropriate for use in an exploratory factor analysis context. A particularly prominent problem in scale evaluation is the ubiquity of correlated residuals and imperfect model specification. Our research focuses on a scale evaluation context and the performance of four standard model fit indices: root mean square error of approximate (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and two equivalence test-based model fit indices: RMSEAt and CFIt. We use Monte Carlo simulation to generate and analyze data based on a substantive example using the positive and negative affective schedule ( N = 1,000). We systematically vary the number and magnitude of correlated residuals as well as nonspecific misspecification, to evaluate the impact on model fit indices in fitting a two-factor exploratory factor analysis. Our results show that all fit indices, except SRMR, are overly sensitive to correlated residuals and nonspecific error, resulting in solutions that are overfactored. SRMR performed well, consistently selecting the correct number of factors; however, previous research suggests it does not perform well with categorical data. In general, we do not recommend using model fit indices to select number of factors in a scale evaluation framework.
-
more » « less
This study investigated the effect the number of observed variables ( p) has on three structural equation modeling indices: the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The behaviors of the population fit indices and their sample estimates were compared under various conditions created by manipulating the number of observed variables, the types of model misspecification, the sample size, and the magnitude of factor loadings. The results showed that the effect of p on the population CFI and TLI depended on the type of specification error, whereas a higher p was associated with lower values of the population RMSEA regardless of the type of model misspecification. In finite samples, all three fit indices tended to yield estimates that suggested a worse fit than their population counterparts, which was more pronounced with a smaller sample size, higher p, and lower factor loading.
-
more » « less
We examine the accuracy of p values obtained using the asymptotic mean and variance (MV) correction to the distribution of the sample standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) proposed by Maydeu-Olivares to assess the exact fit of SEM models. In a simulation study, we found that under normality, the MV-corrected SRMR statistic provides reasonably accurate Type I errors even in small samples and for large models, clearly outperforming the current standard, that is, the likelihood ratio (LR) test. When data shows excess kurtosis, MV-corrected SRMR p values are only accurate in small models ( p = 10), or in medium-sized models ( p = 30) if no skewness is present and sample sizes are at least 500. Overall, when data are not normal, the MV-corrected LR test seems to outperform the MV-corrected SRMR. We elaborate on these findings by showing that the asymptotic approximation to the mean of the SRMR sampling distribution is quite accurate, while the asymptotic approximation to the standard deviation is not.
-
Ghenaiet, Adel (Ed.)In the design of a large deployable mesh reflector, high surface accuracy is one of ultimate goals since it directly determines overall performance of the reflector. Therefore, evaluation of surface accuracy is needed in many cases of design and analysis of large deployable mesh reflectors. The surface accuracy is usually specified as root-mean-square error, which measures deviation of a mesh geometry from a desired working surface. In this paper, methods of root-mean-square error calculation for large deployable mesh reflectors are reviewed. Concept of reflector gain, which describes reflector performance, and its relationship with the root-mean-square error is presented. Approaches to prediction or estimation of root-mean-square error in preliminary design of a large deployable mesh reflector are shown. Three methods of root-mean-square error calculation for large deployable mesh reflectors, namely, the nodal deviation root-mean-square error, the best-fit surface root-mean-square error, and the direct root-mean-square error, are presented. Concept of effective region is introduced. An adjusted calculation of root-mean-square error is suggested when the concept of effective region is involved. Finally, these reviewed methods of root-mean-square error calculation are applied to surface accuracy evaluation of a two-facet mesh geometry, a center-feed mesh reflector, and an offset-feed mesh reflector for demonstration and comparison.more » « less
