New Computations for RMSEA and CFI following FIML and TS Estimation with Missing Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) is a popular estimation method for missing data in structural equation modelling (SEM). However, previous research has shown that SEM approximate fit indices (AFIs) such as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI) can be distorted relative to their complete data counterparts when they are computed following the FIML estimation. The main goal of the current paper is to propose and examine an alternative approach for computing AFIs following the FIML estimation, which we refer to as the FIML-corrected or FIML-C approach. The secondary goal of the paper is to examine another existing estimation method, the two-stage (TS) approach, for computing AFIs in the presence of missing data. Both FIML-C and TS approaches remove the bias due to missing data, so that the resulting incomplete data AFIs estimate the same population values as their complete data counterparts. For both approaches, we also propose a series of small sample corrections to improve the estimates of AFIs. In two simulation studies, we found that the FIML-C and TS approaches, when implemented with small sample corrections, estimated the {population-complete-data} AFIs with little bias across a variety of conditions, although the FIML-C approach can fail in a small number of conditions with a high percentage of missing data and a high degree of model misspecification. In contrast, the FIML AFIs as currently computed often performed poorly. We recommend FIML-C and TS approaches for computing AFIs in SEM.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".