Research institution
California Department of Education
US
3 researchers0 verified4 linked papers149,876 indexed citations
Researchers
Public research profiles associated with California Department of Education.
Research from this institution
Publications linked through researcher authorship records.
1999 · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · 107,621 citations
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives
This article examines the adequacy of the “rules of thumb” conventional cutoff criteria and several new alternatives for various fit indexes used to evaluate model fit in practice. Using a 2‐index presentation strategy, which includes using the maximum likelihood (ML)‐based standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) and supplementing it with either Tucker‐Lewis Index (TLI), Bollen's (1989) Fit Index (BL89), Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Gamma Hat, McDonald's Centrality Index (Mc), or root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), various combinations of cutoff values from selected ranges of cutoff criteria for the ML‐based SRMR and a given supplemental fit index were used to calculate rejection rates for various types of true‐population and misspecified models; that is, models with misspecified factor covariance(s) and models with misspecified factor loading(s). The results suggest that, for the ML method, a cutoff value close to .95 for TLI, BL89, CFI, RNI, and Gamma Hat; a cutoff value close to .90 for Mc; a cutoff value close to .08 for SRMR; and a cutoff value close to .06 for RMSEA are needed before we can conclude that there is a relatively good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data. Furthermore, the 2‐index presentation strategy is required to reject reasonable proportions of various types of true‐population and misspecified models. Finally, using the proposed cutoff criteria, the ML‐based TLI, Mc, and RMSEA tend to overreject true‐population models at small sample size and thus are less preferable when sample size is small.
1992 · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · 29,444 citations
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Introduction Getting Started Theoretical Sensitivity The Uses of Literature Open Coding Techniques for Enhancing Theoretical Sensitivity Axial Coding Selective Coding Process The Conditional Matrix Theoretical Sampling Memos and Diagrams Writing Theses and Monographs, and Giving Talks about Your Research Criteria for Judging a Grounded Theory Study
1998 · Psychological Methods · 11,535 citations
Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.
This study evaluated the sensitivity of maximum likelihood (ML)-, generalized least squares (GLS)-, and asymptotic distribution-free (ADF)-based fit indices to model misspecification, under conditions that varied sample size and distribution. The effect of violating assumptions of asymptotic robustness theory also was ex-amined. Standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) was the most sensitive index to models with misspecified factor covariance(s), and Tucker-Lewis Index (1973; TLI), Bollen's fit index (1989; BL89), relative noncentrality index (RNI), comparative fit index (CFI), and the ML- and GLS-based gamma hat, McDonald's centrality index (1989; Me), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) were the most sensitive indices to models with misspecified factor loadings. With ML and GLS methods, we recommend the use of SRMR, supple-mented by TLI, BL89, RNI, CFI, gamma hat, Me, or RMSEA (TLI, Me, and RMSEA are less preferable at small sample sizes). With the ADF method, we recommend the use of SRMR, supplemented by TLI, BL89, RNI, or CFI. Finally, most of the ML-based fit indices outperformed those obtained from GLS and ADF
1993 · 1,276 citations
Toward an epistemology of physics
The aim of this work is twofold: to understand the intuitive sense of mechanism that accounts for commonsense predictions, expectations, explanations, and judg-ments of plausibility concerning mechanically causal situations and to understand how those intuitive ideas contribute to and develop into school physics. To facili-tate this, I provide a framework for describing and correlating characteristics of weakly organized knowledge systems. The framework is aimed at answering, at a coarse level of detail, a set of questions central to a full theory of knowledge: What are the elements of knowledge; how do they arise; what level and kind of systematicity exists; how does the system as a whole evolve; and what can be said about the underlying cognitive mechanisms that are responsible for the normal oper-ation of the system and its evolution? The empirical base is a set of clinical interviews of undergraduate physics stu-dents trying to solve a set of specially designed problems. Observations from this core and from the existing literature are extended with informal data and synthe-sized using the general framework.