An Investigation of the Sample Performance of Two Nonnormality Corrections for RMSEA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is a popular fit index in structural equation modeling (SEM). Typically, RMSEA is computed using the normal theory maximum likelihood (ML) fit function. Under nonnormality, the uncorrected sample estimate of the ML RMSEA tends to be inflated. Two robust corrections to the sample ML RMSEA have been proposed, but the theoretical and empirical differences between the 2 have not been explored. In this article, we investigate the behavior of these 2 corrections. We show that the virtually unknown correction due to Li and Bentler (2006) Li, L. and Bentler, P. M. 2006. “Robust statistical tests for evaluating the hypothesis of close fit of misspecified mean and covariance structural models.”. In UCLA Statistics Preprint #506. Los Angeles: University of California.. [Google Scholar], which we label the sample-corrected robust RMSEA, is a consistent estimate of the population ML RMSEA yet drastically reduces bias due to nonnormality in small samples. On the other hand, the popular correction implemented in several SEM programs, which we label the population-corrected robust RMSEA, has poor properties because it estimates a quantity that decreases with increasing nonnormality. We recommend the use of the sample-corrected RMSEA with nonnormal data and its wide implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.098 | 0.476 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".