The ANCOVA and CHANGE models can be transformed into one another, so empirical model fit is no criterion for choosing between them¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Both models had the same degrees of freedom and identical global model fit, showing empirical fit cannot decide between the approaches. → Köhler 2021

Evidence¶

Köhler 2021¶

Köhler, C., Hartig, J., & Naumann, A. (2021). Detecting Instruction Effects—Deciding Between Covariance Analytical and Change-Score Approach. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09590-6

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

Fit comparison of the two DESI multilevel latent variable models. The article reports identical fit (χ2 = 715.5; df = 226; RMSEA = 0.014; CFI = 0.963; TLI = 0.960) and concludes "the empirical model fit is no criterion for model selection".

"Both models have the same number of degrees of freedom and an identical global model fit (χ2 = 715.5; df = 226; RMSEA = 0.014; CFI = 0.963; TLI = 0.960). This illustrates that both models can be transformed into another, and the empirical model fit is no criterion for model selection."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In a DESI reanalysis, the ANCOVA approach yielded a non-significant effect of teacher supportiveness on listening comprehension while the CHANGE approach yielded a larger, significant effect — related
• The ESDM's unidirectional trait-ACH-to-trait-ASC path is not empirically identified, and the confounder-based RI-LTVC alternative shows poor fit with no support for a time-varying confounder — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Global-fit evidence does not clearly favor unidimensional over multidimensional academic resilience measurement models, as fit-index pass rates diverge by index — related
• The cross-lagged model holds equally for intervention and control groups and for boys and girls — related