Search for: All records

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. 

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. 

This study compares two missing data procedures in the context of ordinal factor analysis models: pairwise deletion (PD; the default setting in Mplus) and multiple imputation (MI). We examine which procedure demonstrates parameter estimates and model fit indices closer to those of complete data. The performance of PD and MI are compared under a wide range of conditions, including number of response categories, sample size, percent of missingness, and degree of model misfit. Results indicate that both PD and MI yield parameter estimates similar to those from analysis of complete data under conditions where the data are missing completely at random (MCAR). When the data are missing at random (MAR), PD parameter estimates are shown to be severely biased across parameter combinations in the study. When the percentage of missingness is less than 50%, MI yields parameter estimates that are similar to results from complete data. However, the fit indices (i.e., χ 2 , RMSEA, and WRMR) yield estimates that suggested a worse fit than results observed in complete data. We recommend that applied researchers use MI when fitting ordinal factor models with missing data. We further recommend interpreting model fit based on the TLI and CFI incremental fit indices. 

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.