4.5 Article

RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods

Journal

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS
Volume 51, Issue 1, Pages 409-428

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2

Keywords

Structural equation modeling; Ordered categorical data; Diagonally weighted least squares; Unweighted least squares; Maximum likelihood; Fit index

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In structural equation modeling, application of the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) highly relies on the conventional cutoff values developed under normal-theory maximum likelihood (ML) with continuous data. For ordered categorical data, unweighted least squares (ULS) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) based on polychoric correlation matrices have been recommended in previous studies. Although no clear suggestions exist regarding the application of these fit indices when analyzing ordered categorical variables, practitioners are still tempted to adopt the conventional cutoff rules. The purpose of our research was to answer the question: Given a population polychoric correlation matrix and a hypothesized model, if ML results in a specific RMSEA value (e.g., .08), what is the RMSEA value when ULS or DWLS is applied? CFI and TLI were investigated in the same fashion. Both simulated and empirical polychoric correlation matrices with various degrees of model misspecification were employed to address the above question. The results showed that DWLS and ULS lead to smaller RMSEA and larger CFI and TLI values than does ML for all manipulated conditions, regardless of whether or not the indices are scaled. Applying the conventional cutoffs to DWLS and ULS, therefore, has a pronounced tendency not to discover model-data misfit. Discussions regarding the use of RMSEA, CFI, and TLI for ordered categorical data are given.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available