Condition 9 and 10 Tests of Model Confirmation: A Review of James, Mulaik, and Brett (1982) and Contemporary Alternatives

Structural equation modeling (SEM) serves as one of the most important advances in the social sciences in the past 40 years. Through a combination of factor analysis and path analysis, SEM allows organizational researchers to test causal models while accounting for random and nonrandom (bias) measurement error. SEM is now one of the most commonly used analytic techniques and its modern day ubiquity can be traced in large part to a series of intellectual contributions by Larry James. The current article focuses on the seminal work, James, Mulaik, and Brett (1982), and the unique contribution of the “conditions” required for appropriate confirmatory inference with the path and latent variable models. We discuss the importance of James et al.’s Condition 9 and 10 tests, systematically review 14 years of studies using SEM in leading management journals and reanalyze results based on new techniques that extend James et al. (1982), and conclude with suggestions for improved Condition 9 and 10 assessments.

[1]  Morten Moshagen,et al.  On Congruence and Incongruence of Measures of Fit in Structural Equation Modeling , 2018, Psychological methods.

[2]  Charles E Lance,et al.  A taxonomy of path-related goodness-of-fit indices and recommended criterion values. , 2016, Psychological methods.

[3]  Samuel B Green,et al.  The Problem with Having Two Watches: Assessment of Fit When RMSEA and CFI Disagree , 2016, Multivariate behavioral research.

[4]  D. Betsy McCoach,et al.  The Performance of RMSEA in Models With Small Degrees of Freedom , 2015 .

[5]  Jaehoon Lee,et al.  Ignoring Clustering in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Some Consequences for Model Fit and Standardized Parameter Estimates , 2014, Multivariate behavioral research.

[6]  Ehri Ryu,et al.  Model fit evaluation in multilevel structural equation models , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[7]  Ke-Hai Yuan,et al.  Robustness of fit indices to outliers and leverage observations in structural equation modeling. , 2013, Psychological methods.

[8]  V. Savalei,et al.  An Investigation of the Sample Performance of Two Nonnormality Corrections for RMSEA , 2012, Multivariate behavioral research.

[9]  J. Pek,et al.  Individual influence on model selection. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[10]  S. West,et al.  Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. , 2012 .

[11]  Peter M Bentler,et al.  Quantified choice of root-mean-square errors of approximation for evaluation and power analysis of small differences between structural equation models. , 2011, Psychological methods.

[12]  Larry J. Williams,et al.  The Myth of Global Fit Indices and Alternatives for Assessing Latent Variable Relations , 2011 .

[13]  L. J. Williams,et al.  Decomposing model fit: measurement vs. theory in organizational research using latent variables. , 2011, The Journal of applied psychology.

[14]  Ke-Hai Yuan,et al.  Fitting data to model: structural equation modeling diagnosis using two scatter plots. , 2010, Psychological methods.

[15]  J. Edwards,et al.  The Presence of Something or the Absence of Nothing: Increasing Theoretical Precision in Management Research , 2010 .

[16]  Stanley A. Mulaik,et al.  Linear Causal Modeling with Structural Equations , 2009 .

[17]  K. Bollen,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of the Use of Fixed Cutoff Points in RMSEA Test Statistic in Structural Equation Models , 2008, Sociological methods & research.

[18]  Nathan S. Hartman,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING METHODS IN STRATEGY RESEARCH: APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES , 2004 .

[19]  David J. Ketchen,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF THE USE OF STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH , 2004 .

[20]  Peter C Austin,et al.  Bayesian Extensions of the Tobit Model for Analyzing Measures of Health Status , 2002, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[21]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[22]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[23]  P. Bentler,et al.  Fit indices in covariance structure modeling : Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification , 1998 .

[24]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  A Review of Current Practices for Evaluating Causal Models in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management Research , 1994 .

[25]  Larry J. Williams,et al.  Parsimony‐based fit indices for multiple‐indicator models: Do they work? , 1994 .

[26]  J. Schaubroeck,et al.  Confirmatory Modeling in Organizational Behavior/Human Resource Management: Issues and Applications , 1990 .

[27]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Overall Fit in Covariance Structure Models: Two Types of Sample Size Effects , 1990 .

[29]  L. James,et al.  Integrating Work Environment Perceptions: Explorations into the Measurement of Meaning , 1989 .

[30]  S. Mulaik,et al.  EVALUATION OF GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES FOR STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELS , 1989 .

[31]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  EQS : structural equations program manual , 1989 .

[32]  D. Francis An introduction to structural equation models. , 1988, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[33]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[34]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis : The effect of sample size , 1988 .

[35]  C. Lance Disturbance Term Regression Test Procedures for Recursive and Nonrecursive Models: Solution From Intercorrelation Matrices. , 1986, Multivariate behavioral research.

[36]  George W. Bohrnstedt,et al.  Use of Null Models in Evaluating the Fit of Covariance Structure Models , 1985 .

[37]  James C. Anderson,et al.  The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis , 1984 .

[38]  J. S. Tanaka,et al.  Confirmatory hierarchical factor analyses of psychological distress measures. , 1984 .

[39]  C. Schriesheim Causal Analysis: Assumptions, Models, and Data , 1982 .

[40]  Significance Testing in Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. , 1982 .

[41]  William R. Darden,et al.  Causal Models in Marketing , 1980 .

[42]  P. Bentler,et al.  Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures , 1980 .

[43]  J. H. Steiger Statistically based tests for the number of common factors , 1980 .

[44]  Jay Magidson,et al.  Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models , 1979 .

[45]  R. Billings,et al.  Use of path analysis in industrial/organizational psychology: Criticisms and suggestions. , 1978 .

[46]  J. Feldman Considerations in the use of causal-correlational technique in applied psychology , 1975 .

[47]  L. Tucker,et al.  A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis , 1973 .

[48]  Robert L. Linn,et al.  Path analysis: Psychological examples. , 1970 .

[49]  Jacob Cohen Multiple regression as a general data-analytic system. , 1968 .

[50]  R. Darlington,et al.  Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. , 1968, Psychological bulletin.

[51]  G. Freytag [CORRELATION AND CAUSALITY]. , 1964, Psychiatrie, Neurologie, und medizinische Psychologie.