These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28726444)

  • 1. Local fit evaluation of structural equation models using graphical criteria.
    Thoemmes F; Rosseel Y; Textor J
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Mar; 23(1):27-41. PubMed ID: 28726444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Problem with Having Two Watches: Assessment of Fit When RMSEA and CFI Disagree.
    Lai K; Green SB
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2016; 51(2-3):220-39. PubMed ID: 27014948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Masking misfit in confirmatory factor analysis by increasing unique variances: a cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices.
    Heene M; Hilbert S; Draxler C; Ziegler M; Bühner M
    Psychol Methods; 2011 Sep; 16(3):319-36. PubMed ID: 21843002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessing the fit of structural equation models with multiply imputed data.
    Enders CK; Mansolf M
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Mar; 23(1):76-93. PubMed ID: 27893216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Advantages of Using Unweighted Approximation Error Measures for Model Fit Assessment.
    Lubbe D
    Psychometrika; 2023 Jun; 88(2):413-433. PubMed ID: 37071271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quantified choice of root-mean-square errors of approximation for evaluation and power analysis of small differences between structural equation models.
    Li L; Bentler PM
    Psychol Methods; 2011 Jun; 16(2):116-26. PubMed ID: 21341916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. On congruence and incongruence of measures of fit in structural equation modeling.
    Moshagen M; Auerswald M
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Jun; 23(2):318-336. PubMed ID: 28301200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Adapting fit indices for Bayesian structural equation modeling: Comparison to maximum likelihood.
    Garnier-Villarreal M; Jorgensen TD
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Feb; 25(1):46-70. PubMed ID: 31180693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluating SEM Model Fit with Small Degrees of Freedom.
    Shi D; DiStefano C; Maydeu-Olivares A; Lee T
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2022; 57(2-3):179-207. PubMed ID: 33576257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Decomposing model fit: measurement vs. theory in organizational research using latent variables.
    O'Boyle EH; Williams LJ
    J Appl Psychol; 2011 Jan; 96(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 20718518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Fit indices for mean structures with growth curve models.
    Yuan KH; Zhang Z; Deng L
    Psychol Methods; 2019 Feb; 24(1):36-53. PubMed ID: 30372100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. When fit indices and residuals are incompatible.
    Browne MW; MacCallum RC; Kim CT; Andersen BL; Glaser R
    Psychol Methods; 2002 Dec; 7(4):403-21. PubMed ID: 12530701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Structural equation model analysis of infectious disease-specific health literacy scale in China].
    Hu J; Tian XY; Chen JB; Ren XF; Cheng YL
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Feb; 40(2):237-240. PubMed ID: 30744279
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Influence of Number of Categories and Threshold Values on Fit Indices in Structural Equation Modeling with Ordered Categorical Data.
    Xia Y; Yang Y
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2018; 53(5):731-755. PubMed ID: 30477318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Fungible parameter estimates in structural equation modeling.
    Lee T; MacCallum RC; Browne MW
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Mar; 23(1):58-75. PubMed ID: 28414480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods.
    Xia Y; Yang Y
    Behav Res Methods; 2019 Feb; 51(1):409-428. PubMed ID: 29869222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [French validation of the Verona Service Satisfaction Scale-VSSS-54F].
    Corbière M; Lesage A; Lauzon S; Ricard N; Reinharz D
    Encephale; 2003; 29(2):110-8. PubMed ID: 14567162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. On specifying the null model for incremental fit indices in structural equation modeling.
    Widaman KF; Thompson JS
    Psychol Methods; 2003 Mar; 8(1):16-37. PubMed ID: 12741671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices.
    Rodriguez A; Reise SP; Haviland MG
    Psychol Methods; 2016 Jun; 21(2):137-50. PubMed ID: 26523435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A multiple imputation score test for model modification in structural equation models.
    Mansolf M; Jorgensen TD; Enders CK
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Aug; 25(4):393-411. PubMed ID: 31621350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.