{"title":"层次和二阶因子模型的动态拟合指标截止值","authors":"Daniel McNeish, Patrick D. Manapat","doi":"10.1080/10705511.2023.2225132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Abstract</b></p><p>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. Through simulation, we show that traditional benchmarks perform poorly at identifying misspecification in hierarchical models. This corroborates previous studies showing that traditional benchmarks do not maintain optimal sensitivity to misspecification as model characteristics deviate from those used to derive the benchmarks. Instead, we propose a hierarchical extension to the dynamic fit index (DFI) framework, which automates custom simulations to derive cutoffs with optimal sensitivity for specific model characteristics. In simulations to evaluate performance, results showed that the hierarchical DFI extension routinely exceeded 95% classification accuracy and 90% sensitivity to misspecification whereas traditional benchmarks applied to hierarchical models rarely exceeded 50% classification accuracy and 20% sensitivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":21964,"journal":{"name":"Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"87 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dynamic Fit Index Cutoffs for Hierarchical and Second-Order Factor Models\",\"authors\":\"Daniel McNeish, Patrick D. Manapat\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10705511.2023.2225132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><b>Abstract</b></p><p>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. Through simulation, we show that traditional benchmarks perform poorly at identifying misspecification in hierarchical models. This corroborates previous studies showing that traditional benchmarks do not maintain optimal sensitivity to misspecification as model characteristics deviate from those used to derive the benchmarks. Instead, we propose a hierarchical extension to the dynamic fit index (DFI) framework, which automates custom simulations to derive cutoffs with optimal sensitivity for specific model characteristics. In simulations to evaluate performance, results showed that the hierarchical DFI extension routinely exceeded 95% classification accuracy and 90% sensitivity to misspecification whereas traditional benchmarks applied to hierarchical models rarely exceeded 50% classification accuracy and 20% sensitivity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\",\"volume\":\"87 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2023.2225132\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2023.2225132","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dynamic Fit Index Cutoffs for Hierarchical and Second-Order Factor Models
Abstract
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. Through simulation, we show that traditional benchmarks perform poorly at identifying misspecification in hierarchical models. This corroborates previous studies showing that traditional benchmarks do not maintain optimal sensitivity to misspecification as model characteristics deviate from those used to derive the benchmarks. Instead, we propose a hierarchical extension to the dynamic fit index (DFI) framework, which automates custom simulations to derive cutoffs with optimal sensitivity for specific model characteristics. In simulations to evaluate performance, results showed that the hierarchical DFI extension routinely exceeded 95% classification accuracy and 90% sensitivity to misspecification whereas traditional benchmarks applied to hierarchical models rarely exceeded 50% classification accuracy and 20% sensitivity.
期刊介绍:
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal publishes refereed scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in structural equation modeling. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, psychology, medicine, sociology, education, political science, economics, management, and business/marketing. Theoretical articles address new developments; applied articles deal with innovative structural equation modeling applications; the Teacher’s Corner provides instructional modules on aspects of structural equation modeling; book and software reviews examine new modeling information and techniques; and advertising alerts readers to new products. Comments on technical or substantive issues addressed in articles or reviews published in the journal are encouraged; comments are reviewed, and authors of the original works are invited to respond.