Confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models are frequently used in many areas of organizational research. Due to their popularity, CFA models and issues about their fit have received a vast amount of attention during the past several decades. The purpose of this study was to examine several measures of fit and the appropriateness of previously developed ‘‘rules of thumb’’ for their interpretation. First, an empirical example is used to illustrate the effects of nonnormality on maximum likelihood (ML) estimation and to demonstrate the importance of diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation for organizational research. Then, the results of a simulation study are presented to show that appropriate cutoff values for DWLS estimation vary considerably across conditions. Finally, regression equations are described to aid researchers in selecting cutoff values for assessing the fit of DWLS solutions, given a desired level of Type I error. The results summarized here have important implications for the interpretation and use of CFA models.
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. ( 1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
2.
Bandalos, D.L. ( 2006). The use of Monte Carlo studies in structural equation modeling research. In G. R. Hancock & R. D. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
3.
Barrett, P. ( 2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815-824.
4.
Bennett, R.J., & Robinson, S.L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.
5.
Bentler, P.M. ( 1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
6.
Bollen, K.A. ( 1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
7.
Byrne, B.M. ( 1998). Structural equation modeling in LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
Chau, S.L., Dahling, J.J., Levy, P.E., & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). A predictive study of emotional labor and turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1151-1163. doi: 10.1002/job.617.
9.
Chen, F., Curran, P.J., Bollen, K.A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. ( 2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Research Methods, 36, 462-494.
10.
Chou, C.-P., & Bentler, P.M. ( 1995). Estimation and tests in structural equation modeling . In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and application (pp. 37-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Cortina, L.M., & Magley, V.J. ( 2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 247-265.
12.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H., & Langhout, R.D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 6, 64-80.
13.
Culbertson, A., & Rodgers, W. ( 1997). Improving managerial effectiveness in the workplace: The case of sexual harassment of Navy women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1953-1971.
14.
DeCoster, J., Iselin, A.-M.R., & Gallucci, M. ( 2009). A conceptual and empirical examination of justifications for dichotomization. Psychological Methods, 14, 349-366.
15.
DiStefano, C. ( 2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 327-346.
16.
Dolan, C.V. ( 1994). Factor analysis of variables with 2, 3, 5 and 7 response categories: A comparison of categorical variable estimators using simulated data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology , 47, 309-326.
17.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. ( 2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure, and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work and Stress, 23, 24-44.
18.
Fan, X., & Sivo, S.A. ( 2005). Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited . Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 343-367.
19.
Fan, X., & Sivo, S.A. ( 2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 509-529.
20.
Finney, S.J., & DiStefano, C. ( 2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. D. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
21.
Fitzgerald, L.F., Magley, V.J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo, C.R. ( 1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: The sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ-DoD). Military Psychology, 11, 329-343.
22.
Fleishman, A.I. ( 1978). A method for simulating nonnormal distributions. Psychometrika, 43, 521-532.
23.
Flora, D.B., & Curran, P.J. ( 2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466-491.
24.
Gelfand, M.J., Fitzgerald, L.F., & Drasgow, F. ( 1995). The structure of sexual harassment: A confirmatory factor analysis across cultures and settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 164-177.
25.
Glomb, T.M., & Liao, H. ( 2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 486-496.
26.
Harwell, M.R., Stone, C.A., Hsu, T.-C., & Kirisci, L. ( 1996). Monte Carlo studies in Item Response Theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 101-125.
27.
Hoogland, J.J., & Boomsma, A. ( 1998). Robustness studies in covariance structure modeling: An overview and a meta-analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 26, 329-367.
28.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. ( 1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
29.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. ( 1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 424-453.
30.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., & Kano, Y. ( 1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351-362.
31.
Hulin, C.L. ( 1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations . In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 446-505)). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
32.
Hutchinson, S.R., & Olmos, A. ( 1998). Behavior of descriptive fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis using ordered categorical data. Structural Equations Modeling, 5, 344-364.
33.
Jaros, S.J., Jermier, J.M., Koehler, J.W., & Sincich, T. ( 1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models . Academy of Management Journal, 36, 951-995.
34.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
35.
Kendall, M.G., & Stuart, A. ( 1961). The advanced theory of statistics (Vols. 2and3). Oxford, NY: Hafner.
36.
Kline, R.B. ( 2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling . New York, NY: Guilford Press.
37.
La Du, T.J., & Tanaka, J.S. ( 1995). Incremental fit indexes for nested structural equation models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 289-316.
38.
Lei, M., & Lomax, R.G. ( 2005). The effects of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 1-27.
39.
Lim, S., Cortina, L.M., & Magley, V.J. ( 2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95-107.
40.
Lord, F.M., & Novick, M.R. ( 1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
41.
MacCallum, R.C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K.J., & Rucker, D.D. ( 2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables . Psychological Methods, 7, 19-40.
42.
Marsh, H.W., & Grayson, D. ( 1995). Latent variable models of multitrait-multimethod data . In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Issues, concepts, and applications (pp. 56-75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43.
Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. ( 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, 11, 320-341.
44.
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Böckenholt, U. (2005). Structural equation modeling of paired-comparison and ranking data. Psychological Methods , 10, 285-304.
45.
McIntyre, R.M., Bartle, S.A., Landis, D., & Dansby, M.R. ( 2002). The effects of equal opportunity fairness attitudes on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceived work group efficacy . Military Psychology, 14, 299-319.
46.
Micceri, T. ( 1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures . Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156-166.
47.
Mitchell, M.S., & Ambrose, M.L. ( 2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159-1168.
48.
Muthén, B.O. ( 1993). Goodness of fit with categorical and other non-normal variables. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 205-234). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
Muthén, B.O., & Satorra, A. ( 1995). Technical aspects of Muthén’s LISCOMP approach to estimation of latent variable relations with a comprehensive measurement model. Psychometrika, 60, 489-503.
Ormerod, A.J., Lawson, A.K., Sims, C.S., Lytell, M.C., Wadlington, P.L., Yaeger, D., . . . Cohorn, C.A. ( 2003). 2002 Status of the armed forces survey-workplace and gender relations: Report on Scales and Measures (DMDC Rep. No.2002-031). Champaign : University of Illinois, Work Experiences Lab.
52.
Potthast, M.J. ( 1993). Confirmatory factor analysis of ordered categorical variables with large models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 46, 273-286.
53.
Powell, D.A., & Schafer, W.D. ( 2001). The robustness of the likelihood ratio chi-square test for structural equation models: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 26, 105-132.
54.
Rigdon, E.E., & Ferguson, C.E. (1991). The performance of the polychoric correlation coefficient and selected fitting functions in confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Journal of Marketing Research , 28, 491-497.
Sattora, A., & Bentler, P.M. ( 1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. ( 2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23-74.
58.
Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. ( 2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
59.
Tepper, B.J. ( 2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
60.
Vandenberg, R.J., Self, R.M., & Seo, J.H. ( 1994). A critical examination of the internalization, identification, and compliance commitment measures. Journal of Management , 20, 123-140.
61.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes . Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47-71.
62.
Vernon, T., & Eysenck, S. (Eds.). (2007). Special issue on structural equation modeling [Special issue]. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 811-898.
63.
West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. ( 1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Issues, concepts, and applications (pp. 56-75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
64.
Yuan, K. ( 2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 115-148.
