The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of sample size on the cumulative distribution of selected fit indices. Two models (i.e., a reduced and a complete model) and six (20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1,000) sample sizes were used to investigate the effect on the cumulative distribution of the fit indices as sample size was varied. Generally, the comparative fit index (CFI) exhibited very stable patterns and was less influenced by sample size or data types than were other fit indices. In addition, the normed fit index performed similarly to the CFI.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, J. C. (1987).Structural equation models in the social and behavioral sciences: Model building. Child Development, 58,49-64.
2.
Bagozzi, R. P. , & Yi, Y. (1988).On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16,74-94.
3.
Bentler, P. M. (1990).Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,238-246.
4.
Bentler, P. M. , & Bonett, D. G. (1980).Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88,588-600.
5.
Biddle, B. J. , & Marlin, M. M. (1987).Causality, confirmation, credulity, and structural equation modeling. Child Development, 58,4-17.
6.
Bollen, K. A. (1990).Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107,256-259.
7.
Brossart, D. , Willson, V., Patton, M., Kivlighan, D., Jr., & Multon, K. (1998).A time series model of the working alliance: A key process in short-term psychoanalytic counseling. Psychotherapy, 35,197-205.
8.
Fan, X. , Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999).The effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on SEM fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,56-83.
9.
Fan, X. , Wang, L., & Thompson, B. (1997, March). Effects of data nonnormality on fit indices and parameter estimates for true and misspecified SEM models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408 299)
10.
Gerbing, D. W. , & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 40-65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
Hoelter, J. W. (1983).The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 2,325-344.
12.
Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Lomax, R. (1989). Covariance structure analysis: Extensions and developments. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science methodology (Vol. 1, pp. 171-204). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
14.
Marsh, H. W. , Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988).Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103,391-410.
15.
Mulaik, S. A. , James, L. R., Alstine, J. V., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989).Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105,430-445.
16.
Saris, W. E. , & Satorra, A. (1993). Power evaluations in structural equation models. In K. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 181-204). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
SAS Institute . (1989). SAS user’s guide: Statistics, Version 6.01. Cary, NC: Author.
18.
Schumacker, R. E. , & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
SPSS . (1999). SPSS base 10.0. Chicago: Author.
20.
Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 10-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Tanguma, J. , & Speed, F. M. (2000).Graphing cumulative distribution functions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60,488-497.
22.
Thompson, B. (2000). Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. In L. Grimm & P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 261-284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23.
Thompson, B. , & Daniel, L.G. (1996).Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: An historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56,213-224.
24.
Tukey, J. (1997). Exploratory data analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
25.
Wilkinson, L. (1999).Graphs for research in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27,384-407.
26.
Wilkinson, L. , & APA Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604. [re-print available through the APA home page: http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp548594.html]
