Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Sociological Methods & Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WHEATON, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Assessment of Fit in Overidentified Models with Latent Variables

BLAIR WHEATON

McGill University

In recent years a number of measures have been suggested for the assessment of fit of overidentified models with latent variables (i.e., covariance structure models). This article discusses the logic of the fit problem, reviews the analytical intentions of six of these measures, with emphasis on their dependence on sample size, and compares the operational behavior of these measures in three-model situations: in a confirmatory factor model based on small N, and in two covariance structure models, one based on a slightly larger N and the other based on a large N. Given that these models and data are "typical," results suggest that certain measures are both more stable across sample sizes and more sensitive to important variation in fit across substantively plausible models. The article concludes by suggesting a three-component approach to fitting: use of multiple measures, strategical overfitting, and comparison of parameter estimates in borderline versus more clearly sufficient models in terms of fit.

Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, 118-154 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/0049124187016001005
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
C. E. Lance, M. M. Butts, and L. C. Michels
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2006; 9(2): 202 - 220.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
B. E. Ashforth, A. M. Saks, and R. T. Lee
Socialization and Newcomer Adjustment: The Role of Organizational Context
Human Relations, July 1, 1998; 51(7): 897 - 926.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Political Research QuarterlyHome page
R. Herrera, T. Epperlein, and E. R.A.N. Smith
The Stability of Congressional Roll-Call Indexes
Political Research Quarterly, June 1, 1995; 48(2): 403 - 416.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of ManagementHome page
C. E. Lance
Test of a Latent Structure of Performance Ratings Derived from Wherry's (1952) Theory of Rating
Journal of Management, August 1, 1994; 20(4): 757 - 771.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
G. A. Nowacek, P. M. O'Malley, R. A. Anderson, and F. E. Richards
Testing A Model of Diabetes Self-Care Management: A Causal Model Analysis With LISREL
Eval Health Prof, September 1, 1990; 13(3): 298 - 314.
[Abstract] [PDF]