Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improving the evaluation of model fit in confirmatory factor analysis: A commentary on Gundy, C.M., Fayers, P.M., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M. Aa., Scott, N.W., Sprangers, M.A.J., Velikov, G., Aaronson, N.K. (2011). Comparing higher-order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0082-6

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article is a brief commentary in response to “Gundy, C.M., Fayers, P.M., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M. Aa., Scott, N.W., Sprangers, M.A.J., Velikov, G., Aaronson, N.K. (2011). Comparing higher-order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0082-6.” The commentary argues that approximate goodness-of-fit indexes cannot be used to salvage confirmatory factor models rejected by the Chi-square test of exact fit. Instead, rigorous diagnostic procedures should be used to identify and resolve the particular sources of model misspecification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

AGFI:

Approximate goodness-of-fit index

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI:

Comparative fit index

SEM:

Structural equation modeling

References

  1. Gundy, C. M., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M. Aa., Scott, N. W., Sprangers, M. A. J., Velikov, G., & Aaronson, N. K. (2011). Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0082-6.

  2. Hayduk, L. A., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., & Boulianne, S. (2007). Testing! Testing! one, two, three testing the theory in structural equation models! Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 841–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McIntosh, C. N. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 859–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16(4), 561–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cox, D. R., & Wermuth, N. (1996). Multivariate dependencies: Models, analysis and interpretation. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barker, S. F. (1989). The elements of logic (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Olsson, U. H., Foss, T., Troye, S. V., & Howell, R. D. (2000). The performance of ML, GLS, and WLS estimation in structural equation modeling under conditions of misspecification and nonnormality. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(4), 557–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sörbom, D. (2001). Karl Jöreskog and LISREL: A personal story. In R. Cudeck, K. G. Jöreskog, S. H. C. Du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future: A festschrift in honor of Karl G. Jöreskog (pp. 1–10). Lincolnville, NE: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P. M. (2004). On Chi-square difference and z-tests in mean and covariance structure analysis when the base model is misspecified. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(5), 737–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hancock, G. R. (1999). A sequential Scheffé-type respecification procedure for controlling Type I error in exploratory structural equation model modification. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(2), 158–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shipley, B. (2003). Testing recursive path models with correlated errors using d-separation. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(2), 214–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kirby, J. B., & Bollen, K. A. (2009). Using instrumental variable (IV) tests to evaluate model specification in latent variable structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 39(1), 327–355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Accepted for publication in Journal of Personality. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x.

  16. Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., Scheines, R., & Tillman, R. (2010). Automated search for causal relations: Theory and practice. In R. Dechter, H. Geffner, & J. Y. Halpern (Eds.), Heuristics, probability, and causality: A tribute to Judea Pearl (pp. 467–506). London, UK: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Landsheer, J. A. (2010). The specification of causal models with Tetrad IV: A review. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(4), 703–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Xu, L. (2010). Bayesian Ying-Yang system, best harmony learning, and five action circling. Frontiers of Electrical and Electronic Engineering in China, 5(3), 281–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tu, S., & Xu, L. (2011). Parameterizations make different model selections: Empirical findings from factor analysis. Frontiers of Electrical and Electronic Engineering in China, 6(2), 256–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zheng, Z. E., & Pavlou, P. A. (2010). Research note: Toward a causal interpretation from observational data: A new bayesian networks method for structural models with latent variables. Information Systems Research, 21(2), 365–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Crime Prevention Centre, Public Safety Canada, 269 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0P8, Canada

    Cameron N. McIntosh

Authors
  1. Cameron N. McIntosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cameron N. McIntosh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McIntosh, C.N. Improving the evaluation of model fit in confirmatory factor analysis: A commentary on Gundy, C.M., Fayers, P.M., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M. Aa., Scott, N.W., Sprangers, M.A.J., Velikov, G., Aaronson, N.K. (2011). Comparing higher-order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0082-6. Qual Life Res 21, 1619–1621 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0084-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0084-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation