Using the Monte Carlo simulation method, this study analyzes the impacts on fit indices by the degree of nonnormality of variables, the sample size, and the choice of estimation method. To address these issues, we use the causal model of consumer involvement as elaborated by Mittal and Lee. Results of this study show that adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) and goodness of fit index (GFI) are subject to variation in sample size, and their use requires a sample size of at least 300 observations to be reliable. Comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RSMEA) are more reliable with the generalized least squares (GLS) compared with maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) method under different settings of sample size and degree of nonnormality. Finally, for the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), it is recommended that it is used with the MLE method. This study provides prescriptions for the choice of fit indices and the requirements of sample size and estimation method to test the causal model of consumer involvement. The method used here can be extended to any model before fitting it to real data. It helps researchers to prevent conflictual results regarding the choice of fit indices.
AndersonJ.GerbingD. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155–173.
2.
BandalosD. (2006). The use of Monte Carlo studies in structural equation modeling research. In HancockG.MuellerR. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 385–426). Greenwich, CT: IAP-Information Age Publishing.
3.
BandalosD.FinneyS. (2010). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In HancockG.MuellerR. (Eds.), Quantitative methods in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 93–114). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BaumgartnerH.HomburgC. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 139–161.
BezençonV.BliliS. (2010). Ethical products and consumer involvement: What’s new?European Journal of Marketing, 44, 1305–1321.
9.
BlochP.RichinsM. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47, 69–81.
10.
BollenK. (1986). Sample size and Bentler and Bonett’s nonnormed fit index. Psychometrika, 51, 375–377.
11.
BollenK. (1989). Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Applied Probability and Statistics Section: Structural equations with latent variables. Oxford, UK: John Wiley.
12.
BoomsmaA. (1982). Robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In JoreskogK.WoldH. (Eds.), Systems under indirection observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Part I) (pp. 149–173). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.
13.
BoomsmaA. (2000). Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 461–483.
14.
BoxG.CoxD. (1982). An analysis of transformations revisited, rebutted. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 209–210.
15.
BrecklerS. (1990). Applications of covariance structure modeling in psychology: Cause for concern?Psychological Bulletin, 107, 260–273.
16.
BrowneM.CudeckR. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455.
17.
CheungG.RensvoldR. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255.
18.
ChouC.BentlerP. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In HoyleR. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 37–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
CurranP.WestS.FinchJ. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.
22.
DiamantopoulosA.SiguawJ. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide. London, England: SAGE.
23.
DingL.VelicerW.HarlowL. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2, 119–143.
24.
FanX.SivoS. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12, 343–367.
25.
FanX.ThompsonB.WangL. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 56–83.
26.
FlynnL.GoldsmithR. (1993). A causal model of consumer involvement: Replication and critique. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 129–142.
27.
FornellC.LarckerD. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
28.
GierlM.MulvenonS. (1995). Evaluating the application of fit indices to structural equation models in educational research: A review of the literature from 1990 through 1994. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
29.
GlassG.PeckhamP.SandersJ. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42, 237–288.
30.
HarlowL. (1985). Behavior of some elliptical theory estimators with nonnormal data in a covariance structures framework: A Monte Carlo study. PhD dissertation. Los Angeles: University of California.
31.
HuL.BentlerP. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
32.
HuL.BentlerP. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
33.
IacobucciD. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90–98.
34.
In’namiY.KoizumiR. (2013). Review of sample size for structural equation models in second language testing and learning research: A Monte Carlo approach. International Journal of Testing, 13, 329–353.
35.
KapfererJ.LaurentG. (1985). Consumers’ involvement profile: New empirical results. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 290–295.
36.
KennyD.McCoachD. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 333–351.
37.
KlineR. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
38.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12.
39.
LeiM.LomaxR. (2005). The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12, 1–27.
40.
LevineT.HullettC. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 612–625.
MarshH.HauK.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, 320–341.
43.
MarshH.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.MorinA.TrautweinU. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 439–476.
44.
Martínez-LópezF.Gázquez-AbadJ.SousaC. (2013). Structural equation modelling in marketing and business research: Critical issues and practical recommendations. European Journal of Marketing, 47, 115–152.
45.
McIntoshC. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 859–867.
46.
MicceriT. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156–166.
47.
MittalB.LeeM. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 363–389.
48.
MuthénL.MuthénB. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 599–620.
49.
OlssonU.FossT.TroyeS.HowellR. (2000). The performance of ML, GLS, and WLS estimation in structural equation modeling under conditions of misspecification and nonnormality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 557–595.
50.
PaxtonP.CurranP.BollenK.KirbyJ.ChenF. (2001). Monte Carlo experiments: Design and implementation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 287–312.
RichterN.SinkovicsR.RingleC.SchlägelC. (2016). A critical look at the use of SEM in international business research. International Marketing Review, 33, 376–404.
53.
SharmaS.MukherjeeS.KumarA.DillonW. (2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58, 935–943.
54.
SugawaraH.MacCallumR. (1993). Effect of estimation method on incremental fit indexes for covariance structure models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 365–377.
WestS.FinchJ.CurranP. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In HoyleR. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
57.
WestS.TaylorA.WuW. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In HoyleR. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
58.
WilcoxR. (2012). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
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.
