Principles and practice of scaled difference chi-square testing

We highlight critical conceptual and statistical issues and how to resolve them in conducting Satorra–Bentler (SB) scaled difference chi-square tests. Concerning the original (Satorra & Bentler, 2001) and new (Satorra & Bentler, 2010) scaled difference tests, a fundamental difference...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Bryant, Fred B., Satorra, Albert
Tipo de documento: artigo
Estado:Versión aceptada para publicación
Data de publicação:2012
País:España
Recursos:Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya)
Repositório:Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya
OAI Identifier:oai:recercat.cat:10230/46110
Acesso em linha:http://hdl.handle.net/10230/46110
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.687671
Access Level:Acceso aberto
Palavra-chave:Chi-square difference test statistic
Goodness-of-fit test
Moment structures
Nonnormality
Scaled chi-square
Descrição
Resumo:We highlight critical conceptual and statistical issues and how to resolve them in conducting Satorra–Bentler (SB) scaled difference chi-square tests. Concerning the original (Satorra & Bentler, 2001) and new (Satorra & Bentler, 2010) scaled difference tests, a fundamental difference exists in how to compute properly a model's scaling correction factor (c), depending on the particular structural equation modeling software used. Because of how LISREL 8 defines the SB scaled chi-square, LISREL users should compute c for each model by dividing the model's normal theory weighted least-squares (NTWLS) chi-square by its SB chi-square, to recover c accurately with both tests. EQS and Mplus users, in contrast, should divide the model's maximum likelihood (ML) chi-square by its SB chi-square to recover c. Because ML estimation does not minimize the NTWLS chi-square, however, it can produce a negative difference in nested NTWLS chi-square values. Thus, we recommend the standard practice of testing the scaled difference in ML chi-square values for models M 1 and M 0 (after properly recovering c for each model), to avoid an inadmissible test numerator. We illustrate the difference in computations across software programs for the original and new scaled tests and provide LISREL, EQS, and Mplus syntax in both single- and multiple-group form for specifying the model M 10 that is involved in the new test.