Evaluating the performance of existing and novel equivalence tests for fit indices in structural equation modelling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that equivalence testing (otherwise known as negligible effect testing) should be used to evaluate model fit within structural equation modelling (SEM). In this study, we propose novel variations of equivalence tests based on the popular root mean squared error of approximation and comparative fit index fit indices. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we compare the performance of these novel tests to other existing equivalence testing-based fit indices in SEM, as well as to other methods commonly used to evaluate model fit. Results indicate that equivalence tests in SEM have good Type I error control and display considerable power for detecting well-fitting models in medium to large sample sizes. At small sample sizes, relative to traditional fit indices, equivalence tests limit the chance of supporting a poorly fitting model. We also present an illustrative example to demonstrate how equivalence tests may be incorporated in model fit reporting. Equivalence tests in SEM also have unique interpretational advantages compared to other methods of model fit evaluation. We recommend that equivalence tests be utilized in conjunction with descriptive fit indices to provide more evidence when evaluating model fit.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it