Publication Date
| In 2025 | 0 |
| Since 2024 | 2 |
| Since 2021 (last 5 years) | 2 |
| Since 2016 (last 10 years) | 2 |
| Since 2006 (last 20 years) | 2 |
Descriptor
| Cutting Scores | 2 |
| Goodness of Fit | 2 |
| Accuracy | 1 |
| Benchmarking | 1 |
| Classification | 1 |
| Error of Measurement | 1 |
| Evaluation Methods | 1 |
| Factor Analysis | 1 |
| Generalizability Theory | 1 |
| Generalization | 1 |
| Hierarchical Linear Modeling | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Structural Equation Modeling:… | 2 |
Author
| Daniel McNeish | 2 |
| Melissa G. Wolf | 1 |
| Patrick D. Manapat | 1 |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 2 |
| Reports - Research | 2 |
Education Level
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewed
Direct linkDaniel McNeish; Patrick D. Manapat – Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2024
A recent review found that 11% of published factor models are hierarchical models with second-order factors. However, dedicated recommendations for evaluating hierarchical model fit have yet to emerge. Traditional benchmarks like RMSEA <0.06 or CFI >0.95 are often consulted, but they were never intended to generalize to hierarchical models.…
Descriptors: Factor Analysis, Goodness of Fit, Hierarchical Linear Modeling, Benchmarking
Daniel McNeish; Melissa G. Wolf – Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2024
Despite the popularity of traditional fit index cutoffs like RMSEA [less than or equal to] 0.06 and CFI [greater than or equal to] 0.95, several studies have noted issues with overgeneralizing traditional cutoffs. Computational methods have been proposed to avoid overgeneralization by deriving cutoffs specifically tailored to the characteristics…
Descriptors: Structural Equation Models, Cutting Scores, Generalizability Theory, Error of Measurement
