Point Estimation, Hypothesis Testing, and Interval Estimation Using the RMSEA: Some Comments and a Reply to Hayduk and Glaser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hayduk and Glaser (2000) asserted that the most commonly used point estimate of the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation index of fit (Steiger & Lind, 1980) has two significant problems: (a) The frequently cited target value of. 05 is not a stable target, but a "sample size adjustment"; and (b) the truncated point estimate Rt = max(R, 0) effectively throws away a substantial part of the sampling distribution of the test statistic with "proper models," rendering it useless a substantial portion of the time. In this article, I demonstrate that both issues discussed by Hayduk and Glaser are actually not problems at all. The first "problem" derives from a false premise by Hayduk and Glaser that Steiger (1995) specifically warned about in an earlier publication. The second so-called problem results from the point estimate satisfying a fundamental property of a good estimator and can be shown to have virtually no negative implications for statistical practice.
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 | 0.120 | 0.470 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.057 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".