Global-fit evidence does not clearly favor unidimensional over multidimensional academic resilience measurement models, as fit-index pass rates diverge by index¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2–r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Unidimensional models showed higher pass rates for CFI, TLI, and SRMR, whereas multidimensional models showed a higher RMSEA pass rate, so no model family is uniformly superior. → Könül Karimova 2026 q2 i? Exploratory Welch comparisons showed significant differences between model families for CFI and TLI but not for RMSEA or SRMR. → Könül Karimova 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Könül Karimova 2026¶

Könül Karimova, Hsing-Fen Tu. (2026). Dimensionality, Reliability, and Validity of Academic Resilience Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10207-7

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Systematic review synthesis of model-fit pass rates across included validation studies (Table 4). The review reports that "all available unidimensional models met the CFI criterion, compared with 11 of 24 multidimensional models," while RMSEA showed the opposite pattern, so conclusions depend on which fit index is emphasized.

"Unidimensional models showed higher pass rates for CFI, TLI, and SRMR. Specifically, all available unidimensional models met the CFI criterion, compared with 11 of 24 multidimensional models."

Könül Karimova 2026 (2)¶

Könül Karimova, Hsing-Fen Tu. (2026). Dimensionality, Reliability, and Validity of Academic Resilience Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10207-7

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Exploratory Welch tests comparing reported global fit indices by dimensionality (Table 3). The review reports significant differences for CFI (t = −4.70) and TLI (t = −2.95) but not RMSEA or SRMR, and cautions these are descriptive, not formal meta-analytic comparisons.

"The unidimensional and multidimensional model families differed for CFI, t = −4.70, df = 26.03, and TLI, t = −2.95, df = 13.69, but not for RMSEA, t = −0.26, or SRMR, t = 1.85, df = 13.64."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A one-factor unidimensional model is the most reasonable fit for MAP computerized adaptive Reading and Mathematics tests across grades, terms, and ten states, though Michigan Mathematics misses the RMSEA criterion — related
• The ACE-HE measurement model of affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement fits online/blended survey data well — related
• A confirmatory factor analysis supports a four-factor structure of collaborative group engagement (behavioural, social, cognitive, conceptual-to-consequential) for the QCGE self-assessment scale — related
• Most adolescent motivation studies measure teacher–student relationships unidimensionally rather than multidimensionally — related
• A confirmatory factor analysis on a new sample confirms the three-factor structure with acceptable model fit and moderate convergent validity — related
• The ANCOVA and CHANGE models can be transformed into one another, so empirical model fit is no criterion for choosing between them — related
• Early numeracy shows a two-factor structure (NRS and CS) on the Dutch ENT-3, with the two-factor model outperforming a one-factor model at several time points — related