Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a sophisticated form of quantitative analysis that allows researchers to examine complex relationships between latent variables while accounting for measurement error. Prior reviews of SEM studies in psychology and its subdisciplines found numerous methodological problems in application that either prevented adequate evaluation of the study or brought its results into question. We examined the state of the research over the past 7 years (2017–2023) in the two flagship journals of counseling psychology (The Counseling Psychologist [TCP] and the Journal of Counseling Psychology [JCP]). We found evidence of numerous questionable research practices across 62 articles and 65 models, including that independent calculations of the degrees of freedom did not agree with what authors reported in 52% of measurement models and 58% of structural models in the articles reviewed. We conclude with a checklist for researchers, journal reviewers, and editors to reduce common errors in the application of SEM.
American Psychological Association (2024). Summary report of journal operations, 2023. American Psychologist, 79(5), 777–778. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001383
BoomsmaA. (2000). Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(3), 461–483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0703_6
8.
BoomsmaA.HoyleR. H.PanterA. T. (2012). The structural equation modeling research report. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 341–358). The Guilford Press.
9.
BrownS. D.LentR. W. (2011). Handbook of Counseling Psychology (4th ed.). Wiley.
10.
ByrneB. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
11.
ChenQ.SuQ.FengY.ZhangL.DingR.PanJ. (2024). A tutorial on Bayesian structural equation modeling: Principles and applications.International Journal of Psychology, 59(6), 1326–1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.13258
12.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
13.
CortinaJ. M.GreenJ. P.KeelerK. R.VandenbergR. J. (2017). Degrees of freedom in SEM: Are we testing the models we claim to test?Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 350–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116676345
14.
CredeM.HarmsP. (2019). Questionable research practices when using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2018-0272
15.
EndersC. K. (2025). Missing data: An update on the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 30(2), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000563
16.
FanX.SivoS. A. (2009). Using goodness-of-fit indexes in assessing mean structure invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510802561311
17.
FietzerA. W.MitchellE.PonterottoJ. G. (2018). Multicultural personality and multicultural counseling competency in counselor trainees. Counselor Education & Supervision, 57(2), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12095
18.
FurrR. M. (2021). Psychometrics: An introduction (4th ed). Sage.
19.
GefenD.RigdonE. E.StraubD. (2011). Editor’s comments: An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), iii–xiv. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044042
20.
HaydukL. A. (2014). Shame for disrespecting evidence: The personal consequences of insufficient respect for structural equation model test. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(124), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-124
21.
HoyleR. H.IsherwoodJ. C. (2013). Reporting results from structural equation modeling analyses in Archives of Scientific Psychology.Archives of Scientific Psychology,1(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000004
22.
HuL.-t.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
23.
HuL.-t.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
24.
JobstL. J.BaderM.MoshagenM. (2023). A tutorial on assessing statistical power and determining sample size for structural equation models. Psychological Methods, 28(1), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000423
25.
KlineR. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guildford Press.
26.
LiangA.SterbaS. K. (2024). Power analysis to detect misfit in SEMs with many items: Resolving unrecognized problems, relating old and new approaches, and “matching” power analysis approach to data analysis approach. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000684
27.
LittleT. D.CunninghamW. A.ShaharG.WidamanK. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
28.
LittleT. D.RhemtullaM.GibsonK.SchoemannA. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266
29.
LittleT. D.SlegersD. W.CardN. A. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of identifying and scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1301_3
30.
MacCallumR. C.AustinJ. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201
31.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
32.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999). Findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
33.
MartensM. P. (2005). The use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33(3), 269–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000004272260
34.
McDonaldR. P.HoM.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.64
OrdA. S.RipleyJ. S.HookJ.ErspamerT. (2016). Teaching statistics in APA-accredited doctoral programs in clinical and counseling psychology: A syllabi review. Teaching of Psychology, 43(3), 221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316649478
37.
ParentM. C. (2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as good. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(4), 568–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000012445176
38.
PashlerH.WagenmakersE.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253
39.
RossenE.OaklandT. (2008). Graduate preparation in research methods: The current status of APA-accredited professional programs in psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 2(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.2.1.42
40.
SchlomerG. L.BaumanS.CardN. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018082
41.
SchreiberJ. B.NoraA.StageF. K.KingJ.BarlowE. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
42.
SkorupińskiP. M. (2014). American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=409541
43.
StataCorp. (1985–2015). Stata (version 14.2). StataCorp.
**SteigerJ. H.LindJ. C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
ThelwallM.WilsonP. (2015). Does research with statistics have more impact? The citation rank advantage of structural equation modeling. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1233–1244. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23474
48.
TuckerL. R.LewisC. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
WellerB. E.BowenN. K.FaubertS. J. (2020). Latent class analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 46(4), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798420930932
51.
WestonR.GoreP. A.Jr. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345
52.
WorthingtonR. L.WhittakerT. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
