Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T14:01:15.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Standard Errors of Fit Indices using Residuals in Structural Equation Modeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Haruhiko Ogasawara
Haruhiko Ogasawara*
Affiliation:
Otaru University of Commerce
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Haruhiko Ogasawara, Department of Information and Management Science, Otaru University of Commerce, 3-5-21, Midori, Otaru 047-8501 JAPAN. E-Mail: hogasa@res.otaru-uc.ac.jp
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The asymptotic standard errors of the correlation residuals and Bentler's standardized residuals in covariance structures are derived based on the asymptotic covariance matrix of raw covariance residuals. Using these results, approximations of the asymptotic standard errors of the root mean square residuals for unstandardized or standardized residuals are derived by the delta method. Further, in mean structures, approximations of the asymptotic standard errors of residuals, standardized residuals and their summary statistics are derived in a similar manner. Simulations are carried out, which show that the asymptotic standard errors of the various types of residuals and the root mean square residuals in covariance, correlation and mean structures are close to actual ones.

Keywords

standardized residualscorrelation residualsasymptotic standard errorsRMRcovariance structuresmean structuresstructural means

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , September 2001, pp. 421 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The author is indebted to the reviewers for their comments and suggestions which have led to an improvement of this work.

References

Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Petrov, B.N., & Csaki, F. (Eds.), Second International Symposium on Information Theory (pp. 267–281). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P.M. (1983). Some contributions to efficient statistics in structural models: Specification and estimation of moment structures. Psychometrika, 48, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P.M. (1989). EQS: A structural equations program. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software.Google Scholar
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P.M., & Dijkstra, T. (1985). Efficient estimation via linealization in structural models. In Krishnaiah, P.R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis (pp. 9–42). New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bollen, K.A. (1986). Sample size and Bentler and Bonett's nonnormed fit index. Psychometrika, 51, 375–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K.A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17, 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M.W. (1974). Generalized least squares estimators in the analysis of covariance structures. South African Statistical Journal, 8, 1–24.Google Scholar
Browne, M.W. (1982). Covariance structures. In Hawkins, D.M. (Eds.), Topics in applied multivariate analysis (pp. 72–141). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M.W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cudeck, R., & Browne, M.W. (1983). Cross-validation of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, T.S. (1958). A method of generating best asymptotically normal estimates with application to the estimation of bacterial densities. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29, 1046–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. In Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 40–65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Girshick, M.A. (1939). On the sampling theory of roots of determinantal equations. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10, 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, H.H. (1976). Modern factor analysis 3rd ed., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoelter, J.W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relations by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago, IL: International Educational Services.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL7: A guide to the program and applications 2nd ed., Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., du Tott, S., & du Toit, M. (1999). LISREL8: New statistical features. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kano, Y., Bentler, P.M., & Mooijaart, A. (1993). Additional information and precision of estimators in multivariate structural models. In Matusita, K., Puri, M.L., & Hayakawa, T. (Eds.), Statistical science and data analysis (pp. 187–196). Zeist, The Netherlands: VSP International Science Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiti, S.S., & Mukherjee, B.N. (1990). A note on distributional properties of the Jöreskog-Sörbom fit indices. Psychometrika, 55, 721–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H.W., & Balla, J.R. (1994). Goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size and model parsimony. Quality & Quantity, 28, 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: Effects of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H.W., & Hau, K.T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable?. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R.P. (1989). An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality. Journal of Classification, 6, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R.P., & Marsh, H.W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.D. (1989). An evaluation of goodness of fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A. (1989). Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach. Psychometrika, 54, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1990). Model conditions for asymptotic robustness in the analysis of linear relations. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 10, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.Google Scholar
Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structures between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiger, J.H. (1988). Aspects of person-machine communication in structural modeling of correlations and covariances. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steiger, J.H. (1989). EzPATH: A supplementary module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. Evanstone, IL: SYSTAT.Google Scholar
Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification.: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steiger, J.H., & Hakstian, A.R. (1982). The asymptotic distribution of elements of a correlation matrix: Theory and application. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 35, 208–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiger, J.H., & Lind, J.C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual Spring Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
Tanaka, J.S., & Huba, G.J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structural models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, J.S., & Huba, G.J. (1989). A general coefficient of determination for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yung, Y.F., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). On added information for ML factor analysis with mean and covariance structures. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar