Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38250508›Full record

ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2024

Evaluating Model Fit of Measurement Models in Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

David Goretzko, Karik Siemund, Philipp Sterner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Educational and psychological measurement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 121 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
121citing papers in PubMed
81.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

121 citing papers in PubMed, 322 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Development and Validation of the Body Neutrality Questionnaire.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Self-efficacy in mass casualty incident training using mixed reality.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

61 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

David GoretzkoLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2730-6347
Karik SiemundLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany.
Philipp SternerLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8856-4868
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) are often used in psychological research when developing measurement models for psychological constructs. Evaluating CFA model fit can be quite challenging, as tests for exact model fit may focus on negligible deviances, while fit indices cannot be interpreted absolutely without specifying thresholds or cutoffs. In this study, we review how model fit in CFA is evaluated in psychological research using fit indices and compare the reported values with established cutoff rules. For this, we collected data on all CFA models in

Indexed as

confirmatory factor analysisdynamic cutoffsfit indicesmodel fitreview

Identifiers

PMID38250508
PMCPMC10795573
OpenAlexW4362582869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.