Model Fit Index WRMR PreviousNext
Mplus Discussion > Confirmatory Factor Analysis >
Message/Author
 Lili Garrard posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 1:07 pm
I'm a beginner user with Mplus. I'm running a CFA with n=169, 5 dichotomous variables and 2 factors(WLSMV). The initial CFA analysis shows that the model is not a good fit.

Chi-Square Test of Model Fit
Value 13.188*
Degrees of Freedom 4**
P-Value 0.0104
CFI 0.987
TLI 0.981
RMSEA 0.117
WRMR 0.909

After I removed a variable that has weaker association with one of the factors. I got better model fit indices except WRMR. From the readings I did, WRMR close to 1 incicates a good model fit.

Chi-Square Test of Model Fit Value 0.828*
Degrees of Freedom 3**
P-Value 0.8428
CFI 1.000
TLI 1.007
RMSEA 0.000
WRMR 0.212

May I ask what I shoud do next?
Thank you very much.
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 5:44 pm
WRMR is an experimental fit statistic. I would not be concerned about it if all of the other fit statistics look good.
 Karen Offermans posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 2:22 pm
I'm also a beginner with using Mplus. I used Mplus to test 2 models: a mediation model and a moderation model, both with the same ordinal outcome measure. In the mediation model I used a bootstrap and in the moderation model MLR. However, I was wondering, since I want to compare the 2 models on fit, which model fit indices I should and could report comparing these 2 models. It seems that I cannot get similar fit indices: the mediation model, with the bootstrap, only reports WRMR, and the moderation, using MLR, only reports BIC and AIC. furthermore, the WRMR in the mediation model is .003. I thought that the WRMR should be < .09 to be considered an adequate fit. However, the above post stated that WRMR should be around 1 to be considered adequate. Is the latter true?
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 2:37 pm
WRMR is an experimental fit statistic and I would not use it. With bootstrap we don't give fit statistics. We bootstrap only the standard errors. You can run the analysis without BOOTSTRAP and obtain regular fit statistics.

When means, variances, and covariances are not sufficient statistics for model estimation, chi-square and related fit statistics are not defined and are not available.
 Karen Offermans posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 3:02 pm
Thank you for your quick response. I just have one more question, is it correct to use a bootstrap in the final analyses and report these results (estimates and s.e. etc.), however, also report the fit measure e.g. RMSEA for the same model, obtained without using the bootstrap?
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 3:22 pm
Yes, as long as you don't say the fit statistics are bootstrapped.
 Miguel Angel Cano posted on Monday, November 21, 2011 - 3:31 pm
I am using mPlus version 5. I preformed a CFA with a combination of binary and continuous variables; however, the output only provides RMSEA and WRMR. Should I be concerned that chi-squared and CFI are not included? Thank you,

Here my input.

Usevariables are

idugrp_r
nidfr15d
durhr_r
strang1
strang2
strang3
strang4
strang5;

CATEGORICAL ARE
idugrp_r
nidfr15d
durhr_r;

Missing are all (99999);

Analysis:
ESTIMATOR = WLSMV;
iterations = 100000;
BOOTSTRAP = 50;

Model:
F1 BY strang1 strang2 strang3 strang4 strang5 idugrp_r nidfr15d durhr_r;

Output:
MODINDICES STDYX;
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2011 - 10:24 am
It seems odd that you get RMSEA but not chi-square. We don't support Version 5. I would suggest upgrading and if you find the same thing sending the output and your license number to support@statmodel.com.
 f f  posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - 8:17 pm
Hello,
My CFA model fit is as below.

Chi-Square Test of Model Fit

Value 3507.918*
Degrees of Freedom 1047
P-Value 0.000
RMSEA = 0.054
CFI=0.96 TLI= 0.953
WRMR=1.636

Would you please let me know whether WRMR is problematic here?

Thanks for your assistance.

Farveh
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Thursday, May 29, 2014 - 6:22 am
WRMR is an experimental fit statistic. I would ignore it.
 f f  posted on Thursday, May 29, 2014 - 6:50 pm
Thanks Porf.Muthen for the reply.

Just in case, is there any reference to support the idea than we can ignore WRMR?
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Friday, May 30, 2014 - 5:37 am
You will just have to take my word for it.
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: