How to evaluate local fit (residuals) in large structural equation models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistent with reporting standards for structural equation modelling (SEM), model fit should be evaluated at two different levels, global and local. Global fit concerns the overall or average correspondence between the entire data matrix and the model, given the parameter estimates for the model. Local fit is evaluated at the level of the residuals, or differences between observed and predicted associations for every pair of measured variables in the model. It can happen that models with apparently satisfactory global fit can nevertheless have problematic local fit. This may be especially true for relatively large models with many variables, where serious misspecification is indicated by some larger residuals, but their contribution to global fit is diluted when averaged together with all the other smaller residuals. It can be challenging to evaluate local fit in large models with dozens or even hundreds of variables and corresponding residuals. Thus, the main goal of this tutorial is to offer suggestions about how to efficiently evaluate and describe local fit for large structural equation models. An empirical example is described where all data, syntax and output files are freely available to readers.
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 | 0.056 | 0.378 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.010 |
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".