{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033426183844011144, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012070566388115135, 'mean_word_length': 5.7375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sensitivity of Fit Indexes to Misspecified Structural or Measurement Model Components: Rationale of Two-Index Strategy Revisited

In previous research (Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999), 2 conclusions were drawn: standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) was the most sensitive to misspecified factor covariances, and a group of other fit indexes were most sensitive to misspecified factor loadings. Based on these findings, a 2-index strategy-that is, SRMR coupled with another index-was proposed in model fit assessment to detect potential misspecification in both the structural and measurement model parameters. Based on our reasoning and empirical work presented in this article, we conclude that SRMR is not necessarily most sensitive to misspecified factor covariances (structural model misspecification), the group of indexes (TLI, BL89, RNI, CFI, Gamma hat, Mc, or RMSEA) are not necessarily more sensitive to misspecified factor loadings (measurement model misspecification), and the rationale for the 2-index presentation strategy appears to have questionable validity.