text:
Mplus Home
Last Day
Last 3 Days
Last Week
Tree View
Edit Profile
Chi-square difference test in categor...
Mplus Discussion
Categorical Data Modeling
posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 10:31 am
How to carry out Chi-square difference test if indicators in a model are all or partly categorical?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 10:37 am
Use the WLS estimator for difference testing. Use the WLSMV estimator for the final model.
posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 12:12 pm
For a theoratical model with all categorical indicators, fit indices are:
which are acceptable.
But Chi-square difference test between theoratical model and measurement model is significant. In this case, Is Chi-square difference test realy matter? Is it a crucial index among all fit indices such that the testing model must meet it first of all?
Any suggestions?
posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 2:41 pm
Both of your models fit the data reasonably well. However, if the two models differ in important ways substantively, the result of the chi-square difference testing is important. The difference testing is a powerful way to distinguish between models. Note, however, that you should make sure that the two models are nested.
posted on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 6:23 am
These two model are indeed nested.
Chi-square difference test is not siginificant only after allowing residual covariance between the error terms of some indicators which belong to same latent variable. Can I modify the model in this way? what is the concerns about this practice?
Thank you
posted on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 11:41 am
Introducing residual covariances between the error terms of some indicators belonging to the same latent variable can greatly improve Chi-square differece test. However, these residual covariances of these error terms are not significant. As I understand, In the output of final model which one deems it acceptable, all factor loadings and path coefficents should be significantly different from zero. However, we are allowed to just keep residual covariacnes of error terms in the model if it can offer better fit, no matter whether they are significant or not. Am I right?
posted on Monday, March 10, 2003 - 7:35 am
Typically, if a residual covariance gives an improvement in chi-square it is also significant. A good practice is to include in your model only residual covariances that are both significant and make substantive sense.
posted on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 10:14 am
According to your suggestion, use the WLS estimator for Chi-square difference testing. Use the WLSMV estimator for the final model. More general, however, there are also many fit indices which are linked with chi-square value or degrees of freedom, e.g.,
NFI--Normed-fit index
PR--Pasimonious ratio
PNFI---Pasimonious mormed-fit index
RNFI---Relative normed-fit index
RPR----Relative pasimony ratio
RPFI---Relative parsimonious-fit index .
Should I use all chi-square values and degrees of freedom from WLSMV estimate or all of that from WLS estimate?
If I use that from WLSMV, a problem occurs when calculating PR:
where dfj is the degrees of freedom derived from testing model while df0 is that derived from baseline model. Theoretically PR should smaller than one but real calculation shows it greater than one.
If we should use those chi-square values from WLS estimate, in what circumstances can the values of that from WLSMV be used?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 12:55 pm
For difference testing, use WLS. For all else, I would use WLSMV. RMSEA, CFI, and TLI have been investigated for WLSMV by one of Bengt's students. They seem to work well. The other measures have not been studied as far as I know. I would definitely not use PR with WLSMV because of the fact that the degrees of freedom are not calculated in the regular way and do not have the same meaning. I'm sure that PR was developed for degrees of freedom calculated in the regular way.
posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 8:22 am
Sorry, but what does chi-square difference test mean? WLSMV is not accepted in this test. Does the diefference test mean that if you look perhaps with WLS to the quality of your model you compare the difference of (Chi-sq.0Model-df of 0model)- (chi-sq.hyp.model-df of hyp.Model) / (chi-sq0model-df0model) to compute CFI? If the values of the hyp.Model are lower than the ones of the 0model, this means a high CFI. Is it not allowed to use WLSMV for a difference test because the df are computed in another way (User's Guide: 358)? But what does the CFI if this is the case, mean if WLSMV is used? Or does chi-square difference test mean something completely different from that i wrote?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 5:24 pm
Mplus Version 3 now has a procedure for doing chi-square difference testing using WLSMV. Yes, the problem was that the degrees of freedom are not computed in the regular way.
posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 12:38 am
So, does the difference test mean the comparison between 0-Model and hyp.-Model and the Comparative Fit Index to check the quality of your model is such a difference test?
posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 11:40 am
The difference test refers to a comparison between H0 and H1, where H0 is nested within H1. Here, H0 is the model you are focusing on. H1 can be any less restricted model. With CFI, H1 is the completely unrestricted model.
posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 10:44 am
I want to use the difftest command in M-Plus 3 to perform a difference of two nested models (with categorical data). Can you point me to the reference that describes the analytics of the procedure (I will need to cite it). Has any simulation work been done that I can cite as well? Thank you.
posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 11:38 am
This method is equivalent to the difference testing that was previously implemented in Mplus for H1/H0 model testing (see Muthen, DuToit, Spisic). We have conducted many simulations but there is no reference yet. Simulations of this kind are unfortunately not very easy to do currently in Mplus.
Marisa Schlichthorst
posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:25 am
Dear Support Team,
I am using the chi� difference test under WLSMV. Can you explain shortly, why the two step procedure is necessary? Are there any references about this?
My second question concers invariance testing in MGA with categorial outcomes under WLSMV. For correct interpretation of group means invariance of intercepts and loadings must be given, right? But what about the thresholds? Can the thresholds be free while the loadings are constant over groups? In other words, is it possible to test separately on invariance of thresholds and invariance of loadings? Millsap & Tein (2004) are talking about a minimum of thresholds beeing constant due to identification while others let all thresholds vary over groups. What do you think, is the best way of invariance testing? And in terms of identification is it possible to set all thresholds free?
Thanks for helping.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:53 am
Technical appendix 4 discusses estimators in Mplus. You can request the Muthen, DuToit, and Spisic paper from
We recommend invariance testing where thresholds and intercepts are held equal or not in tandem. One reason is that item characterisitc curves are based on both of these parameters. Not all thresholds can be freed.
I have added a section to Chapter 13 in the Version Mplus User's Guide that describes the steps we recommend for testing measurement invariance for continuous and for categorical outcomes.
Julien Morizot
posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 5:59 pm
Hello Linda and Bengt,
When I report a chi-square for a CFA (or other kinds of model), I routinely uses the little correction of "chi-square value divided by its df." (Bollen, 1989). Although purists think its not the best practice, to me it is a little better than the "always" significant chi-square.
My question is: can this correction be applied to the DIFFTEST in Mplus. Because it is a difference test, this may militates against such correction? I'm not so sure how it is calculated, so I wonder what you guys would think about this practice. Thanks.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 7:54 am
I was also fond of the chi-square divided by df, but it seems like this is essentially what (the better motivated)RMSEA does,
RMSEA = sqrt (CS/(n*df))
where CS is the chi-square, n is the sample size, and df is the degrees of freedom.
No, you can't apply CS/df to DIFFTEST because it gives results in WLSMV style where only the p value is relevant.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:17 am
Let me backtrack on the last part of my answer. In DIFFTEST, the df printed is not the difference between the number of parameters in the two models compared. Nevertheless, the value printed is chi-square for the df printed (so the p value is right as a function of those two) -this would suggest that the CS/df descriptive approach you mention is equally motivated here, although I am not saying that I particularly endorse it.
Carol M. Woods
posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 11:40 am
When I tried to use the DIFFTEST procedures for WLSMV to compare 1- and 2-factor EFA models, I got this error:
Should the WLSMV diff testing method work for EFA?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 4:08 pm
The DIFFTEST option cannot be used with TYPE=EFA; You would need to do an EFA in a CFA framework to use DIFFTEST.
kc blackwell
posted on Friday, September 01, 2006 - 11:35 am
When comparing two nested models (as in a series of invariance analyses) using the DIFFTEST option with WLSMV, is it possible that the chi-square value for the more restrictive model (i.e., with loadings constrained across groups) will be smaller than the chi-square value for the less restrictive model (i.e., a baseline model without these loading constraints), or does this indicate an error on my part?
Thank you for your help.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Friday, September 01, 2006 - 12:18 pm
The chi-square values for WLSMV cannot be used directly for difference testing. This is why we have the DIFFTEST option. These values do not follow the normal expectations. I would not be concerned.
Charles B. Fleming
posted on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 11:36 am
Linda and Bengt,
I have been doing some multiple group analyses using WLSMV and have run into some instances where, according the the Satorra-Bentler scaled (mean-adjusted) chi-square, the CFI, the TLI and the RMSEA, the constrained model fits better than the unconstrained model. In addition, the estimated df for constrained model is less than the estimate for the unconstrained model. The diff test runs -- that is, it accepts that the models are nested - and shows a nonsignificant change in chi-square. It is also the case that the estimates from the unconstrained models (i.e., thresholds and factor loadings) are very close to one another across groups. Here are the results for a CFA model with 4 groups, 3 latent variables and 2 measured variables.
Unconstrained model:
S-B scaled chi-square= 135.08
estimate of df=72
Constrained model
S-B scaled chi-square= 89.25
estimate of df= 57
Diff test:
diff in chi-square= 33.40
change in df=25
My apologies for posting a question that is similar to questions you have answered before, but after reading through prior posts I am still left wondering if I have made some sort of mistake.
Thank you for your help.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 12:40 pm
To clarify, the Satorra-Bentler scaled (mean-adjusted) chi-square is part of the MLM estimator not WLSMV. If you are using WLSMV, the chi-square values cannot be used for difference testing without using the DIFFTEST option which it appears you are using. With WLSMV, you don't expect the chi-square value and the degrees of freedom to behave as with ML, for example.
Charles B. Fleming
posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 10:27 am
Thank you for clearing up my confusion about the Santorra-Bentler scaled chi-square. Where can I find an explanation for the calculation of chi-square and degrees of freedom when using the WLSMV estimator? The fact that the the df do not seem to correspond in a straightforward way with the number of measured variables and the number of estimated associations among variables is confusing to me.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 10:43 am
See Technical Appendix 4 which is on the website.
Charles B. Fleming
posted on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 10:32 am
I am helping prepare a manuscript that reports on some of the analyses described in the post above using WLSMV to accommodate categorical variables in an SEM. In the methods section of the paper, we say that we used WLSMV estimates of chi-square and the derivatives difference test for change in model fit with nested models. Given that some of our reported results will still seem odd to readers familiar with ML estimates, I am considering adding the following footnote:
"Degrees of freedom for the model fit chi-square test is itself mean- and variance- adjusted when using the WLSMV estimator and does not correspond in a straightforward way with the numbers of measured variables and estimated parameters. This leads to some values that may appear counter-intuitive (e.g., nested models where the estimated degrees of freedom for the constrained model are the same or fewer than for the unconstrained model). Also, the difference in model fit for nested models that is based on the derivatives difference test does not correspond directly with the differences in estimated chi-square and degrees of freedom between the constrained and unconstrained models."
Is this accurate? Even after reading the technical appendix and the Muthen, du Toit, and Spisic paper, I am still a little fuzzy on what is going on with the DIFFTEST and the chi-square and df estimates.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 5:16 pm
This seems reasonable. You could also say that the chi-square is adjusted to obtain an accurate p-value and it is the p-values that are relevant in this situation.
Rick Sawatzky
posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 12:01 am
I would like to use the DIFFTEST to examine the chi-square difference for two models with all categorical data and using WLSMV estimation. The HO model has five first-order correlated factors and the H1 model is the more restricted model with a second-order factor (see below). Technically these models are nested, but the software keeps giving me the message that "THE CHI-SQUARE DIFFERENCE TEST COULD NOT BE COMPUTED BECAUSE THE H0 MODEL IS NOT NESTED IN THE H1 MODEL". Is there a solution for calculating the chi-square difference between these two models when using WLSMV estimation?
Here are the two models I would like to compare:
MODEL: F1 by y2 y5 y6 y7;
F2 BY y8 y11 y15 y16;
F3 BY y27 y32;
F4 BY y18 y21 y23 y24;
F5 BY y35 y36 y37 y38;
F by family friends living
school self;
SAVEDATA: DIFFTEST IS test.dat;
DIFFTEST IS test.dat;
MODEL: F1 by y2 y5 y6 y7;
F2 BY y8 y11 y15 y16;
F3 BY y27 y32;
F4 BY y18 y21 y23 y24;
F5 BY y35 y36 y37 y38;
Rick Sawatzky
posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 12:08 am
My apologies, I mislabeled the second-order factor structure in my previous posting. Here are the two models that I would like to compare using the DIFFTEST:
MODEL: F1 by y2 y5 y6 y7;
F2 BY y8 y11 y15 y16;
F3 BY y27 y32;
F4 BY y18 y21 y23 y24;
F5 BY y35 y36 y37 y38;
F by F1 F2 F3 F4 F5;
SAVEDATA: DIFFTEST IS test.dat;
DIFFTEST IS test.dat;
MODEL: F1 by y2 y5 y6 y7;
F2 BY y8 y11 y15 y16;
F3 BY y27 y32;
F4 BY y18 y21 y23 y24;
F5 BY y35 y36 y37 y38;
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 10:08 am
Did you run the model with the second-order factor first? It is the more restrictive model because it imposes constraints on psi.
Rick Sawatzky
posted on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 2:59 pm
Linda, thanks for pointing that out. I had indeed incorrectly saved the derivatives of the more restrictive model first. The difftest works fine when based on the derivatives of the less restrictive model. Thanks again.
Katherine A. Johnson
posted on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 9:28 am
I am performing a DIFFTEST to assess the extent to which there are gender differences in individual regression parameters in a path model. My H1 model is a saturated model. In my H0 model, I have constrained 1 parameter to be equal across groups by including "y1 ON x1 (1);" in the model command. My output reads:
Chi-square test for difference testing
Value .566
Degrees of freedom 1**
P-value .4519
Does the p-value of .4519 indicate that this individual regression parameter is not significantly different by gender?
Thank you for you time.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 9:57 am
The interpretation of difference testing is described in Chapter 13 under Model Difference Testing. A non-significant result indicates that the constraining the parameter to be equal in both groups does not significantly worsen model fit. This indicates that the parameter is not different in both groups.
Katherine A. Johnson
posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 8:30 am
I have a path model with 6 continuous endogenous variables being estimated using ML. I am interested in testing the extent to which there is a significant improvement in model fit with the addition of a single dichotomous mediating variable. I run into a problem because my nested model is estimated using ML while my comparison model must be estimated using WLSMV because of the categorical mediating variable. Which chi-square difference testing procedure would be appropriate in this situation?
On a related note, is it possible to test the significance of the change in R square of the outcome variables individually rather than testing the change in the overall fit of the model ?
Thank you for your help,
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 9:06 am
A necessary condition for models to be nested is that they have the same set of observed variables. You should include the same set of observed variables in both models and fix the regression of the distal to zero in one and allow it to be estimated in the other. With WLSMV, note that the DIFFTEST option is needed for chi-square difference testing. See Example 12.12 in the Mplus user's guide.
R-square is not a test of model fit so I would not use it in that way.
Katherine A. Johnson
posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 9:14 am
Ahhhh yes. That makes sense. I hadn't thought of that. Thank you very much for your help.
Ruth Parslow
posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 6:13 pm
I have a data set of dichotomous variables, have been analysing them using WLMSV and have compared the goodness of fit of a number of different models relative to a baseline model using the Chi-squared difference test. Following your comments to Julien March 20-21 2006 I have been using the DIFFTEST Chi-square divided by its degrees of freedom as the comparison value when comparing fit of models. You suggested in your response that the DF for this measure makes this division valid. (It also makes a difference to my results whether or not the Chi squared value is reduced in this way.)
I have a couple of questions:
- Could you please confirm that the Difference Test Chi-square values could be validly compared when divided by the DF. A reviewer of our paper has strongly criticised our using this measure.
- Is it possible to derive an AIC or similar value to allow us to compare the relative fit of pairs of non-nested models?
- Is there any way in which I could obtain a 95% confidence for the RMSEA when doing these analyses?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 6:20 am
I think the reviewer is criticizing using a chi=square divided by the degrees of freedom in general. I would agree with this criticism. I don't advocate this practice.
No. AIC is for maximum likelihood estimators.
No, this has not yet been developed for weighted least squares.
Ruth Parslow
posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - 7:10 pm
Thanks Linda
Following on from your response, when I use the difference test to compare the goodness of fit of two non-nested models relative to the baseline model, the DIFFTEST Chi square values are associated with different numbers of degrees of freedom. Can these Chi square values (both highly significant) be compared without any adjustment? That�s where I had thought the division by degrees of freedom was appropriate. Is there any other way I can make a quantitative statement about their relative goodness of fit? (The variables in the data set are all dichotomous)
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 6:21 am
If you are using the DIFFTEST option, you must be comparing two nested models and using WLSMV. With WLSMV, only the p-value is meaningful. The chi-square and degrees of freedom are adjusted to obtain a correct p-value. The is why you need to use the DIFFTEST option for chi-square difference testing.
There are more fit measures than chi-square to consider. I would look at those in addition to chi-square. If you have a very large sample, it may be that chi-square is sensitive to model misfit.
harvey brewner
posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 8:25 am
doing a mgfa using wlsm (delta) to test invariance across 6 groups. responses are all categorical. i am doing a chi-square difference test comparing a baseline model (thresholds, factor loadings, factor variance and covariance freed across groups) with a restricted model (parameters constrained equal across groups). # of groups=6, # of observations: Group SE=321; Group GN=166; Group PN=196; Group PT=161; Group DM=160; Group PPP=251, # of dependent variables=36; # of independent variables =0, # of continuous latent variables =3. chi-square for baseline model=6478.376(3561) and the chi-square for the restricted model=6465.057(3726). is this possible to have a baseline model with a higher chi-square with lower number of df than the restricted model? it seems strange to have a negative chi-square and positive df for a chi-square difference test.
harvey brewner
posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 7:10 am
to continue from the above message... i am having the same issue with only 2 groups (same data set - i thought it might be the complexity of the model). my chi-square for the baseline model is greater than chi-square for the restricted model, but the df for the baseline model is less than the df for the restrictive model. i don't think it is my syntax or coding, because i use the exact same syntax on a different data set and i don't have the issue. any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 9:52 am
Please send your input, data, output, and license number to
Sophie van der SLuis
posted on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 9:13 am
I'm fitting a CFA model with binairy indicators and I test nested models using the DIFFTEST option.
I have two questions:
1. MPlus prints an overall fit of the model including a chi-square.
In my case, chi(128)=155.389, p=.05.
Can I interpreted this overall fit as I would in the case of continuous data [even though I can't use it for chi-diff testing]? I mean: for continuous data, I would conclude that, given that my sample size is large, this chi-square indicates a well fitting model.
(Note that CFI=.999, RMSEA=.013; this indicates good fit as well, but I particularly want to know whether the overall chi-square fit can be interpreted as usual).
I struggle with how to report the results of the chi-square difference tests that I get when I use the DIFFTEST option because the degrees of freedom are not equal to the number of parameters that I constrain...
Thanks in advance
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 11:17 am
In both cases with WLSMV, the only value that is interpretable is the p-value.
Sophie van der SLuis
posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 5:25 am
Im fitting genetic models with binary data: I use WLSMV and the model constraint option.
I cant interpret the chi-square or use it for model comparison, but I also cant use the DIFFTEST option because it is incompatible with the model contraint option.
How to proceed??
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 10:16 am
Try WLSM.
Sophie van der SLuis
posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 11:28 am
If is use WLSM,
I still get the warning;
*** ERROR in Analysis command
DIFFTEST is not available in conjuction with nonlinear constraints through
the use of MODEL CONSTRAINT. Request for DIFFTEST is ignored.
and no further output...
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 11:38 am
You don't use DIFFTEST with WLSM. You use the scaling correction factor like with MLR or MLM.
Sophie van der SLuis
posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 11:52 am
aha! that was silly. thanks so much
I always appreciate your swift reactions to questions
Wei Chun
posted on Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 11:16 pm
How do we obtain Satorra-Bentler chi-square statistic and it's p value in Mplus?
With thanks
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, December 22, 2008 - 7:01 am
This is the MLM estimator in Mplus.
Wei Chun
posted on Monday, December 22, 2008 - 2:41 pm
I am testing a structural model (n = 1965) using WLSMV estimator. The other fit indices are fine but the Chi-square p is significant. Do you think that the model should be rejected?
Many thanks.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, December 22, 2008 - 4:50 pm
The sample size is not that large for categorical outcomes. I would need to see the whole picture to comment further. If you send the output and your license number to
, I can take a look at it.
Richard E. Zinbarg
posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 9:18 am
Hi Linda and/or Bengt,
I have run into a problem conducting difference tests for models including categorical indicators. We have compared a number of nested models successfully (that use identical measurement models but differ in terms of the paths included in the structural model) but with one comparison in particular Mplus tells us that the models are not nested and we are certain that they are (the one simply frees up 4 paths in the structural model to be estimated that aren't included in the comparison model). Please let me know if you need me to send you the outputs from each of the two models, and the data file and the derivatives.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 9:27 am
Please send your full outputs and license number to
Richard E. Zinbarg
posted on Saturday, April 11, 2009 - 6:17 pm
will do, thanks Linda!
Sanja Franic
posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 4:08 am
which alpha does DIFFTEST use? 0.05, 0.01 or something else?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 8:50 am
DIFFTEST gives the p-value.
Guillaume Filteau
posted on Saturday, April 25, 2009 - 7:00 pm
I'm using the DELTA parameterization with WLSMV, and I need to change the default saturated model to take into account some restriction (twin 1 is identical to twin 2).
I guess I should estimate a modified saturated model, and use DIFFTEST with this model?
However, I'm unsure how the saturated model is estimated in Mplus, especially while using the Delta parametrization and the multigroup option. Is there a reference somewhere?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, April 27, 2009 - 10:07 am
You should run a model where what you want the H1 model to be is the H0 model using DIFFTEST in the SAVEDATA command. Then run the H0 model using DIFFTEST in the ANALYSIS command.
The folloiwng paper may discuss the saturated model in Mplus:
Prescott, C.A. (2004). Using the Mplus computer program to estimate models for continuous and categorical data from twins. Behavior Genetics, 34, 17-40.
Jason Bond
posted on Tuesday, December 08, 2009 - 12:42 pm
I'm attempting to assess whether the addition of a single dichotomous indicator of a factor to a number of other dichotomous indicators improves model fit. Alternatively, I guess this question could be formulated as "is such a question answerable using a typical chi-squared difference test?"
If so, then from the first post above, your suggestion is to use WLS. But you've also mentioned in a post above that, when using chi-squared difference testing (specifically when using the DIFFTEST option which only applies to the WLSMV estimator), the same set of variables should be in the model
So would it be correct in the Null Model to use:
Model: f By toleranc-socintpb*
when considering the single additional craving variable or to simply exclude it from consideration (i.e., not include it in the Usevar list or the Categorical list or the Model statement)?
My concern is that, when I do the latter, the Ha model chi-squared produced is larger than the H0 model chi-squared and has more degrees of freedom (due to all of the covariances excluded I imagine plus the excluded path), whereas in the traditional chi-squared difference testing from nested modeling exhibits the reverse. But in doing the former, should I also fix all other model parameters associated with craving to zero as well (i.e., Tau)?
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, December 08, 2009 - 6:16 pm
I would take the former approach and but still include parameters for the mean (or threshold) and variance (if any) for the variable.
Jason Bond
posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 - 10:45 am
So when you refer to variance for the variable I'm assuming that you are referring to the additional dichotomous manifest variable (i.e., craving) and not the factor variance? However, in looking through the output and TECH1 output parameters, I don't see anywhere variances for the dependent dichotomous indicators (i.e., the THETA matrix). Is this something that can be allowed?
My goal is to assess the contribution of an additional variable above and beyond the other variables in the model. As it is correlated with the other variables already in the model, the chi-squared produced by fixing its factor loading to 0 is massive. However, the question of whether the additional variable contributes anything to the model fit above and beyond the other variables doesn't seem to quite be answered by this approach.
Others considering this question have performed analyses with and without the additional variable included and compared the usual fit measures (BIC, RMSEA, information curves, etc.) across the two models. Which do you think might be more relevant? Thanks much again Bengt.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 - 6:03 pm
To answer your questions in turn:
That's right.
In this case there is no variance - that's what I meant by "if any".
Depends on the question - see below.
I think the problem is formulated in an awkward way - I don't think one should think about whether or not adding an indicator improves model fit. Instead, think about whether or not it adds important information for the factor (assuming the model still fits). That question could be answered by information functions. And could be answered by reduction of SEs in structural relations that the factor is involved in.
Serban Iorga
posted on Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 5:13 pm
I read the comments regarding calculations of degrees of freedom for chi-square difference testing using WLSMV. I understand that the chi-square and degrees of freedom are adjusted to obtain a correct p-value, and (they are not what one would perhaps expect to see).
However, what is formula for calculating the degrees of freedom for chi-square difference testing using WLSMV? (The Technical Appendices do not state it, and neither does Satorra and Bentler [1999], unless I missing something; nor do they represent the difference in the degrees of freedom of the two nested models.)
I understand that the degrees of freedom for chi-square for model fit are calculated according to Appendix 4, (110).
Thank you so much. Best,
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 - 9:27 am
See the DIFFTEST technical appendix on the website.
Alicia E Moss
posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 4:10 pm
Dear Linda,
When you stated on Monday, June 19, 2006 that "The DIFFTEST option cannot be used with TYPE=EFA; You would need to do an EFA in a CFA framework to use DIFFTEST," does that mean that I should run the resulting EFA models in CFA in order to get the correct MLR scaling factor to use in the Satorra-Bentler modification?
-OR- Can I use the MLR scaling factor that automatically displayed below the chi-square in my categorical EFA with default estimator WLSM?
The technical appendix at
does not specify what to do for WLSM estimation although the output warning states that "MLM, MLR and WLSM chi-square difference testing is described in the Mplus Technical Appendices at
. See chi-square difference testing in the index of the Mplus User's Guide."
Thank you for your time,
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 5:00 pm
WLSM should be treated as MLM and MLR.
You may not be aware that we have a new way to do EFA as part of a CFA model. See the Version 5.1 Language and Examples Addendums on the website with the user's guide.
Fatma Ayyad
posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2010 - 1:47 pm
Dear Dr. Muthen,
When I tried to use the DIFFTEST procedures for WLSMV to compare the parameters between two groups I got this:
Should I consider the p-value of the Chi-square test of model fit? Otherwise, how should I judge on my model?
Thank you,
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2010 - 3:21 pm
DIFFTEST is used to test two nested models. To determine the fit of a single model, use the fit statistics provided.
Fatma Ayyad
posted on Thursday, October 21, 2010 - 8:17 pm
Thank you!
Lucy Gallienne
posted on Monday, November 15, 2010 - 8:31 pm
I want to test measurement invariance between nested models using DIFFTEST. The problem is, I have a massive dataset (250+K), so the tiniest differences are going to come up as significant. Is there any way I can specify the amount the models need to be different by? E.g. test the probability that the models differ by more than say, 10%?
Or alternatively, would any other tests (say change in CFI, TLI) be useful? (and how does one request these in MPlus syntax).
My other option is to take random samples from my whole sample, but I'd like to attempt it on the whole sample if possible.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 9:58 am
All fit statistics available for a particular model are given as the default.
I would suggest taking random samples from the sample of a size such that you don't have any empty cells in the bivariate tables of the categorical indicators.
posted on Monday, March 21, 2011 - 11:38 am
Is this the right formula for calculating chi-square difference test for categorical data using WLSM, because in the notes it says "Chi-square testing for continuous non-normal outcomes"?
cd = (d0 * c0 - d1*c1)/(d0 - d1)
TRd = (T0*c0 - T1*c1)/cd
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, March 21, 2011 - 1:05 pm
Yes, these would be the correct formulas in that case also.
Stacie Warren
posted on Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 4:36 pm
I have 19 ordinal items as indicators of 3 latent factors using WLSMV (as determined by EFA, promax rotation). I would like to test this model against a different sample, to see if the 3 factor structure holds. From the postings and the Mplus manual, it seems that I would run one CFA using both groups, specifying 3 factors, and would then run the same model but specify that the factor covariances across both groups are equivalent [i.e., f1 WITH f2 f3 (1)]. I would then use the difftest function to determine if the two models are significantly different. Is this correct? I am very new to Mplus, so I have also included a snippet of my code:
For H0 model:
GROUPING IS group (0=n561 1=n562)
MODEL: F1 BY B10_in B19_in B28_in
B54_in B61_in B66_in B71_in B79_in B80_in;
F2 BY B9_sb B18_sb B27_sb B36_sb;
F3 BY B3_wm B39_wm B48_wm
B63_wm B73_wm B78_wm;
SAVEDATA: DIFFTEST IS deriv_561_562_9in_6wm_4sh.dat;
For H1 model:
GROUPING IS group (0=n561 1=n562)
MODEL: !same as above plus next line
ANALYSIS: DIFFTEST IS deriv_561_562_9in_6wm_4sh.dat;
Is this correct?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, March 28, 2011 - 10:18 am
This looks correct. You can also consider comparing variances. See multiple group analysis in the Topic 1 and Topic 2 course handouts for measurement invariance and the comparison of structural parameters.
Stacie Warren
posted on Monday, March 28, 2011 - 2:44 pm
Thank you for your reply. For this same data set, I would like to test the invariance of factor loadings between these two independent samples (19 categorical indicators, 3 continuous latent variables). From the course handouts you mention, it seems that the default in Mplus is to hold the factor loadings equal between groups. In order to test the factor loadings between groups, it seems that I would create an overall analysis model for both groups (as I did in my H0 model above), and then run this as a CFA saving the residuals (using difftest). For my second CFA (and subsequently chi square difference test), I would include a group model in addition to the overall analysis model, but the group model would need to specify that the factor loadings are to be freely estimated. According to the manual, it looks like I would list each indicator with a * to allow the factor loadings to be freely estimated. However, on the slides (#212, topic 1) it appears that I should list the indicators in brackets. Can you please explain?
I went ahead and modeled my code after slides #212-213. However I receive the following error when attempting to run the second model and difftest:
Please advise. Thank you.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Monday, March 28, 2011 - 5:01 pm
If you look through the User's Guide you see that bracket statements are either intercepts (for continuous indicators) or thresholds (for categorical indicators) - they are not loadings.
Melissa Cyders
posted on Monday, September 26, 2011 - 10:11 am
Hello. I am testing measurement and structural invarance across two groups using WLMSV. DIFFTEST works for the measurement invariance tests, but as I move from scalar to factor variance invariance, the DIFFTEST error states: the chi-square difference test could not be computer because the HO model is not nested in the H1 model. Could you please advise?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, September 26, 2011 - 10:44 am
Please send the two outputs and your license number to
Suzet Tanya Lereya
posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 4:01 am
I have just started using mplus (and doing sem & path analysis). I am a bit confused with the fit of the model. My model consists of categorical outcome variable and mostly categorical variables with only 1 continuous variable.
Usevariables are
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 y1 x7 x8;
Categorical are
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6;
aliend by x4 x5 x6;
alienp by x1 x2;
alienp with y1;
alienp with aliend;
y1 with aliend;
alienp y1 aliend on x7 x8;
x3 on alienp x8 y1 aliend;
Chi Square test of model:
105.518* df: 16 p: 0.000
RMSEA Estimate: 0.022
Chi-Square Test of Model fit for the Baseline Model:
5274.423 df: 35 p: 0.000
Since the chi-square test shows significance, does that mean that the model is not fitting well? However, I thought the CFI & TLI was showing good fit.
Thanks in advance
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 9:28 am
CFI is a less stringent fit statistic than chi-square. If you are new to both Mplus and SEM, I suggest listening to our Topic 1 course video on the website and getting an SEM book. A good one for beginners is the one by Rex Kline.
posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - 9:58 am
will do that... thanks a lot!
posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 2:08 pm
In conducting a MGFA I found non-invariance of the factor loadings/thresholds across groups (p<.001) but the CFI and RMSEA values were unchanged between the baseline model and the loading/threshold model. In other words, the difference test indicated that constraining the loadings/threshold equal across groups resulted in a decrease in the fit of the model, but the goodness-of-fit values suggest no such decrease in model fit. The same thing has happened in several other analyses. Why would the goodness-of-fit indicate no change? Which values do you pay attention to, i.e. is there really a decrease in model fit?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 2:12 pm
The default in Mplus is for the thresholds and factor loadings to be held equal across classes. So you should be relaxing, not imposing, these constraints. See the Topic 2 course handout under multiple group analysis to see how to do this. See also the multiple group discussion in Chapter 14 of the user's guide.
posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 5:21 pm
In accordance with topic 14 my baseline model has the loadings/thresholds freed across groups, and in what I called the "loading/threshold" model the parameters were made equal (mplus default). Is this not right? At any rate, I found non-invariance between these two models, according to the DIFFTEST (p<.001), but the CFI and RMSEA values were unchanged between the two model. My question pertains to the discrepancy between the DIFFTEST and the CFI and RMSEA. That is, the DIFFTEST suggests that constraining the loadings/thresholds to be equal decreased the fit of the model while the CFI and RMSEA suggest that the fit of model did not change. My question is why would the goodness-of-fit values indicate no change when the DIFFTEST suggest that the model fit decreased? Which values do you pay attention to?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 6:39 pm
I would have to see the two outputs and your license number at
to say anything more.
David Kosson
posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2011 - 7:34 am
I have been asked by a reviewer to explain how the df are calculated for the chi square difference test (in assessing invariance between a less restrictive CFA model using ordered categorical data and a more restrictive model). I have read the technical appendix for chi-square difference testing on the website, but I am afraid that I do not completely understand it. I have two questions about it.
First, I do not see the scaling correction factor for either the less restrictive model (c0) or for the more restrictive model (c1) as part of my Mplus output.
Second, I am hoping you can clarify how the scaling correction factor is estimated or calculated. My current understanding is that using the scaling correction is helpful for ensuring that the obtained chi square difference test value approximates a chi square distribution. But I am not entirely sure that I am correct or how the scaling correction is obtained.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - 5:54 pm
The degrees of freedom for a chi-square difference test is the difference in degrees of freedom between the two models. If you don't find the scaling correction factor, you must be using an old version of the program. The formula for the scaling correction factor is in Technical Appendix 4. This cannot be computed by hand.
David Kosson
posted on Thursday, November 10, 2011 - 1:22 pm
Thanks. I am guessing you are saying that this is the case even if I am using the WLSMV estimator (which i am). But this does not seem to be the case --
For my less restrictive model (allowing the groups to differ on all loadings and thresholds, using nomean structure),the Chi Square Value = 251.196*
Degrees of Freedom = 79**
For my more restrictive model (allowing the groups to differ on loadings but not thresholds, no mean structure), the chi square value = 226.604*
Degrees of Freedom = 76**
But for the chi square difference test,
chi square value = 19.033
Degrees of Freedom = 9**
P-Value = 0.0249
In case it helps, there were 13 indicators, all latent factor means were set at 0 and all scale factors (or indicators) were fixed at 1.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, November 10, 2011 - 1:43 pm
If you are using a version before Version 6, the degrees of freedom for WLSMV are not calculated in the regular way. Both chi-square and the degrees of freedom are adjusted to obtain a correct p-value. Neither chi-square nor the degrees of freedom should be interpreted. To do difference testing with WLSMV, you must use the DIFFTEST option. There is no scaling correction factor involved. The difference in the number of free parameters can be used instead of the difference in degrees of freedom.
Eric Chen
posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 - 12:54 am
Dear Dr. Muthen,
I conduct a multiple group categorical CFA using WLSMV as estimator.
I wonder how to carry out the chi-square difference test when the difference between my H0 and H1 models is a nonliear constraint.
Thanks in advance.
JH Chen
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 - 11:56 am
Can you describe more what you mean by the difference being a non-linear constraint.
Eric Chen
posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 - 5:28 pm
Dear Dr. Muthen,
I plan to use two groups 1-factor CFA to assess uniform and non-uniform DIF, separately.
So,the 1st constraint is (threshold/loading) for the studied item to be equal across two groups.
And the 2nd constraint is (loading/residual variance) for the studied item to be equal across two groups.
JH Chen
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, December 15, 2011 - 9:22 am
These are not nonlinear constraints. You can do regular difference testing in your case.
Eric Chen
posted on Thursday, December 15, 2011 - 8:26 pm
Dear Dr. Muthen,
Thnaks for your reply.
I have one more question.
If I have to use WLSMV as estimator and MODEL CONSTRAINT to specify my H0 model, how could I carry out a chi-square difference test in Mplus6?
It seems that DIFFTEST can't work when the WLSMV and MODEL CONSTRAINT are used at the same time.
JH Chen
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Friday, December 16, 2011 - 9:19 am
Please send the output that shows this problem and your license number to
Nathan Alkemade
posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 - 5:35 pm
When completing EFA on categorical data using the WLSMV estimator in the output there is a section titled 'FACTOR STRUCTURE'. What rotation is used to ascertain this output? Are they a recalculation of the Geomin rotated loadings also provided?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - 10:29 am
The default rotation is used or the rotation specified using the ROTATION option. The factor structure is the item-factors correlations.
Jens Jirschitzka
posted on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 6:51 am
Dear Mplus Team,
if I treat my variables as categorical in multiple group models, taking MLR (not WLSMV) as estimator (type = mixture) and using the likelihood ratio test (LRT) for model comparisons:
Should I use (in the case of categorical outcomes and MLR) the formulas on
- �Difference Testing Using the Loglikelihood with MLR�) based on loglikelihood values and scaling correction factors? Or is it better with categorical outcomes to use ML and the ordinary likelihood ratio test for model comparisons?
My question is triggered by a posting from Tihomir Asparouhov:
�If you are using the MLR estimator with categorical data you should use the unscaled likelihood ratio test. The S-B is designed to be used for the case when you are treating the variables as continuous.� (
Does it mean: only take the MLR likelihood values and calculate: -2*(L0 - L1), without difference test scaling correction?
Thank you very much.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, May 09, 2013 - 1:41 pm
What he meant is that MLR should be used when categorical variables are treated as continuous. If categorical variable are treated as categorical then ML should work fine. If you use MLR, the scaling correction factor is always required.
Thomas Rodebaugh
posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - 12:56 pm
hi there,
we are trying to conduct the difftest for a model using WLSMV, and are getting this error message:
in a search of the discussion forum, it looks like this problem usually leads to y'all asking to see the input and data, but in this case we wouldn't be able to do that because some of the data can't be shared due to a legal agreement. are there any other options here that we could try to pursue?
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - 2:44 pm
Please send the outputs from the two runs and we'll see what we can do.
Thomas Rodebaugh
posted on Monday, July 08, 2013 - 11:51 am
thanks, bengt. we managed to resolve that specific problem but can't get past messages that the models aren't nested (when as far as we can tell they are)--so we will send the outputs in case you can help.
sojung park
posted on Tuesday, November 05, 2013 - 7:11 pm
Dear Dr.Muthens,
I am running regression with binary outcome. In order to have FIML,
I use the syntax
how can I do chi-square test for series of nested model?
if I use WLSMV, it seems I still have FIML, but I prefer running logit, not probit model..
thank you so much!
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, November 06, 2013 - 10:02 am
You do a difference test using the loglikelihoods. See Chi-Square Difference Test for MLM and MLR in the left column of the home page.
posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - 1:19 pm
Dr. Muthen,
Can I use .csv data file for the DIFFTEST? Or, does it only work for a .dat data file? I am comparing nested models, using the WLSMV estimator.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - 2:54 pm
Either file can be used as long as it is a text file.
posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 11:02 am
Dear Drs. Muthen,
I am having the same problem as a few other people in this thread where I'm trying to conduct a chi-square difference test between two models that I believe are nested, where the indicators are categorical and the estimator is ULSMV. The error message is the following:
I am using the method described on your site for ULSMV/WLSMV estimators.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 6:02 pm
Please send the outputs from the two steps to support along with your license number.
Sarah Dermody
posted on Sunday, March 01, 2015 - 1:07 pm
To compare nested models with MLR and categorical dependent variables, there is no scaling correction factor in the output (Mplus V 7.2). A "chi-square test of model fit for the binary and ordered categorical outcomes" is provided. Is it allowable to do a traditional chi-square difference test to compare nested models without the scaling correction factor?
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Sunday, March 01, 2015 - 5:16 pm
Please send the full output to
along with your license number so we can see your exact situation.
Lois Downey
posted on Thursday, September 03, 2015 - 7:41 am
I am using WLSMV and DIFFTEST in an exploratory investigation of whether there are regional differences in various categorical outcomes. Region is a 11-category nominal scale variable, and each model uses 10 dummy indicators as predictors of one of the outcomes of interest. However, the p-value of the chi-square difference test differs considerably, depending upon which region I use as the reference group.
For my final models, I've been using the category with the lowest coefficient as the reference group, thus ensuring that the coefficient estimates are all positive. Is this a reasonable strategy? Or is there a better rule of thumb for selecting the reference group in an exploratory study, given that the result depends on which region is selected?
Thank you.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Thursday, September 03, 2015 - 7:47 am
Try using Model Test to see if you face the same issue.
Lois Downey
posted on Thursday, September 03, 2015 - 9:57 am
Thanks. I'll try that. However, I've not used Model Test before. Let me be sure I understand the procedure. Is this the correct procedure for testing a nominal scale variable with 7 categories?
Run 1:
Y on x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6 (b1-b6);
Run 2:
Y on x0,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6 (b1-b6);
Then compare the p-values for the Wald Test of Parameter Constraints from the two runs.
Is that correct?
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Thursday, September 03, 2015 - 3:49 pm
You want to test that all of them are zero jointly, so
Model Test:
0 = b1;
0 = b6;
you can do that using a DO loop:
Model Test:
DO(1,6) 0 = b#;
Lois Downey
posted on Thursday, September 03, 2015 - 10:29 pm
Oh, I see. Thanks!
Although this method gives p-values for the Wald tests that are similar when the reference category is altered, they don't match exactly. For example, looking at one outcome, I get the following p-values for omnibus tests for 5 sets of dummy indicators, depending upon the reference group selected:
0.6501 vs. 0.6523
0.4873 vs. 0.5016
0.4788 vs. 0.4786
0.3385 vs. 0.3534
0.0446 vs. 0.0447
(I perhaps should have mentioned that these are complex regressions, although I don't know whether that's relevant.)
If I use the MLR estimator rather than WLSMV, and the log likelihood and scaling factor to compute the p-value for the omnibus test, I get the following values for the 5 predictors above (irrespective of which category is used as the reference group):
The discrepancies between the results with MLR (which is the estimator I've typically used in the past) and WLSMV are of concern, making me think that I should use MLR for my current analyses. Do you agree?
Thanks very much for your help.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Friday, September 04, 2015 - 8:57 am
Please send input, output, and data for a relevant WLSMV vs MLR comparison so we can take a look at it. Send as little as possible to pinpoint their differences.
Daniel Lee
posted on Friday, April 22, 2016 - 6:58 pm
Hello Dr. Muthen,
I used the modification indices for categorical EFA (WLSMV) and removed an item that was contributing to a lot of model misfit. After removing the item, I would like to conduct a Difftest (as you normally would for two models w/ categorical indicators) but the deriv.dat would not save. The error message I get when I try to "SAVEDATA: Difftest is deriv.dat" for the baseline EFA model is:
*** WARNING in SAVEDATA command
The DIFFTEST option is not available for TYPE=EFA. Note that the DIFFTEST option is
available with the use of EFA factors (ESEM). Request for DIFFTEST will be ignored.
I would appreciate your guidance and resources for conducting difftests in categorical EFA models.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Saturday, April 23, 2016 - 4:48 pm
You will need to do your EFA as an ESEM. See Example 5.24. This example is an EFA if you remove the covariate and direct effects. Other ESEM examples follow it.
Daniel Lee
posted on Saturday, April 23, 2016 - 8:13 pm
Many thanks! Makes perfect sense!
Vaiva Gerasimaviciute
posted on Thursday, April 28, 2016 - 1:37 pm
I am running a cross-lagged autoregressive model with two main categorical variables and some continuous covariates. To handle missing data I am using ML estimator with Montecarlo integration. I would like to compare nested models. However, DIFFTEST is not allowed with ML estimator. Should I use different estimator (WLS?) just for the model comparison?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, April 28, 2016 - 5:16 pm
With ML, you can look at the difference in the loglikelihoods and the difference in the number of parameters. Minus two times the loglikelihood difference is distributed as chi-square.
Vaiva Gerasimaviciute
posted on Thursday, September 29, 2016 - 12:53 pm
Dr. Muthen,
1) In my cross-lagged autoregressive models all variables are categorical (estimator ML), so I assume I do not need to calculate correction factor when I calculate chi-square from loglikelihoods?
2)could you recommend a reference paper for calculating chi-square using log likelihoods of nested models?
3)Also, output does not give any fit indices. Is there a way to know if my baseline model fits the data well?
Thank you,
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Thursday, September 29, 2016 - 5:46 pm
1) Correct.
2) Try any SEM book.
3) There is not an overall test of fit but you can look at bivariate fit using TECH10.
Vaiva Gerasimaviciute
posted on Thursday, September 29, 2016 - 7:16 pm
Thank you.
Is there a possible solution to this?
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Friday, September 30, 2016 - 3:56 pm
Not really because you no longer have a frequency table to test the model against. Instead, you can think about the restrictions that the model imposes - such as only lag-1 relationships - and free up those restrctions to see if that model has a better logL.
Martin Taylor
posted on Thursday, October 06, 2016 - 1:10 pm
Is there a way to inspect for outliers under the Bayes estimator in mplus? I see in Lee's (2007) text on bayesian structural equation modeling there is a suggestion to inspect the residuals for outliers and a qq-plot for normality to check the fit of the model. Thanks!
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Thursday, October 06, 2016 - 3:37 pm
We don't have that implemented yet.
Sara De Bruyn
posted on Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - 1:41 am
Dear Dr. Muthen,
I am doing multiple group CFAs to test for configural and metric invariance of a scale across three groups. I want to compare the configural and the metric model using chi-square difference testing. Since we are using the MLR estimator, we have to calculate the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square difference test (TRd) as indicated on the website. In order to do so we need to use the scaling correction factor. We are however not sure which scaling correction factor to use, as the output reports several ones: On the one hand the output reports two scaling correction factors (H0 and H1) under the heading 'loglikelihood' and on the other hand the output reports a scaling correction factor under the heading 'Chi-Square Test of Model Fit'. Which one should we use?
Thank you for your answer.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - 3:45 pm
The chi-square difference testing that is printed already takes this into account - no need to work with the scaling factors.
Sara De Bruyn
posted on Monday, January 08, 2018 - 1:40 am
Dear Dr. Muthen,
Thank you for your answer. However, as far as I know, no chi-square difference test is printed. I calculated the difference test using the formulas on your website for an MLR estimator:
Is this correct?
Thank you.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Monday, January 08, 2018 - 5:34 pm
Please send your output to Support along with your license number.
Theres Ackermann
posted on Thursday, April 19, 2018 - 3:47 am
I would like to compare a second-order factor model with a two-factor model. However, I always get the error:
My syntax is:
Run 1:
SAVEDATA: DIFFTEST IS X2.dat;
Run 2:
DIFFTEST IS X2.dat;
I also tried running the second order factor model first, but got the same error message.
Thank you very much for your help,
Theres Ackermann
posted on Thursday, April 19, 2018 - 10:57 am
Hi again,
I just realized that the second order factor does not influence the model fit and the models show exactly the same model fit indices. Is there another way to find out which model fits the data better, the second order factor model or the two factor model?
Thank you
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Thursday, April 19, 2018 - 4:18 pm
A second-order factor model is not testable unless you have at least 4 first-order factors. What the second-order factor model does is to put restrictions on the factor covariance matrix of the first-order factors. With 3 first-order factors this is the same as the 3 elements in that covariance matrix so fit is the same. With only 2 first-order factor indicators the model is not identified - one factor covariance cannot identify a loading and a factor variance, nor two loadings as in your case.
Theres Ackermann
posted on Thursday, April 19, 2018 - 4:26 pm
Thank you for your response, it helped me a lot!
Maren Schulze
posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2018 - 3:15 am
I have run a two-factor vs. four factor model with 13 categorical indicators and multi-level data, using WLSMV and TYPE = COMPLEX.
For the four-factor model, I have specified:
I have 59 degrees of freedom.
For applying the chi-square difference test with WLSMV with regard to the two-factor model, I have specified:
and I have 63 degrees of freedom.
However, the "regular" two-factor model in which all indicators from F1 and F2 load on one factor (F1) and all indicators from F3 and F4 load on a second factor (F3), I have 64 degrees of freedom.
Wouldn't df have to be the same in both instances?
Where have I misspecified the model(s)?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Tihomir Asparouhov
posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2018 - 3:26 pm
There should be just one covariance
Maren Schulze
posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 - 4:01 am
Thanks a million, now it works out.
Maren Schulze
posted on Thursday, July 12, 2018 - 2:46 am
I am comparing model fit of a one-factor vs. two-factor model with six indicators, using WLSMV and TYPE = COMPLEX and the DIFFTEST option as described in the handbook (with SAVEDATA: DIFFTEST IS deriv_2_vs_1.dat for the two-factor model and ANALYSIS: DIFFTEST IS deriv_2_vs_1.dat for the model with the correlation fixed to one).
I am puzzled by the value of the chi-square difference test which is 230.850 (with df = 1) - even though the chi-square value is 78.863 (with df = 9) in the one-factor model and 25.557 (with df = 8) in the two-factor model.
What could be the reason for this deviation - have I misspecified something?
Tihomir Asparouhov
posted on Thursday, July 12, 2018 - 6:34 pm
It doesn't look like a mispecification. The DIFFTEST command is not a difference between the two chi-square values, although it does look odd. Regardless ... the p-value is 0. You can test factor correlation=1 instead with a z-test.
Maren Schulze
posted on Friday, July 13, 2018 - 8:20 am
Do you mean Steiger's z-test, based on Fisher's z-transformation?
Is that possible in MPlus?
Tihomir Asparouhov
posted on Friday, July 13, 2018 - 9:27 am
I meant
(factor score estimate - 1)/(factor score standard error)
You can even square that and get a chi-square for the same test (which you can compare to DIFFTEST). I don't think Steiger's z-test applies here.
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Tree View
Program Credits


text:
Lewis Hamilton is adamant it is not impossible for Mercedes to become winners this season and challenge Formula One's front runners.
Hamilton yesterday paid a visit to the Mercedes-Benz museum and factory in Stuttgart and delivered a rousing speech to the workforce ahead of his debut campaign with the German manufacturing giant.
The 28-year-old will this year attempt to revive the fortunes of a team that has won just one grand prix in the three years since their return to F1 at the start of 2010.
In signing a three-year contract worth £15million per season after quitting McLaren where he had spent the previous six years, the pressure is on Hamilton and Mercedes, but he is convinced they can both deliver.
Hamilton said: "I think this year is going to be an interesting year, an interesting journey, but I think it's going to be a journey we enjoy.
"I live to win. That's what I work towards every year, so that's what we're going to work towards this year.
"Of course it's going to be tough to compete with the guys who are already at the front - the Red Bulls, the McLarens, the Ferraris - but I don't think it's impossible."
"I live to win. That's what I work towards every year" - Lewis Hamilton
Speaking in a video released by Mercedes, Hamilton has quickly managed to integrate himself with the team, who yesterday announced Williams shareholder Toto Wolff as their new executive director.
"To be back and to know I'm part of the Mercedes world is a real privilege. I'm so grateful to be welcomed into the team and really excited," said Hamilton.
"I've been to Brackley (the Mercedes F1 base) in the early part of December, asking lots of questions, trying to get as involved as I can in the limited time that I was there.
"It was great to see how enthusiastic everyone was. It looked like there was incredible determination to turn this around.
"That gave me a lot of motivation for my winter."
Mercedes, meanwhile, are understood to be on the brink of poaching McLaren technical director Paddy Lowe from the Woking-based marque as they further strengthen that side of their operation.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Drivelines - May 2014
The Latest News Form The Industry
Detroit Show Reveal: 2015 Ford F-150
How exactly do you go about redesigning a bestseller? We got our first look when Ford took the wraps off the 2015 Ford F-150 at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. When it goes on sale later this year it will feature four engines: a new 2.7L EcoBoost, a 3.5L EcoBoost, a naturally aspirated 3.5L V-6, and a 5.0L V-8, all backed by six-speed automatics (no power figures were available yet). There's also a new fully boxed ladder frame, and for the first time military-grade aluminum alloys have been used throughout the body to keep the weight down and make the truck more dent-resistant. In fact, the truck is about 700 pounds lighter, meaning it can tow or haul more. The badging even got a new look. Ford says it used a font called "bold leadership" and—we cracked up over this—removed the hyphen between F and 150, which "adds to the message of efficiency." Way to sweat the details, Ford.
When it goes on sale the 2015 Ford F-150 (geez, do we have to spell it the other way now for efficiency?) will be available in the XL, XLT, Lariat, Platinum, and King Ranch models, in regular, SuperCab, and SuperCrew bodies. All three 2015 Ford F-150's will offer a choice of two bed lengths. And the popular FX4 option group will be back, with an electronic rear locker, extra skidplates, and revalved shocks.
This Just In
• You can win an opportunity to be among the first people to test the new 2015 Ford F-150 . Log on to BuiltToughTest.com and tell Ford how you would test the toughness of the new truck. Up to five winners will be chosen to spend a week driving the new F-truck while video crews film the whole thing for Ford Trucks' YouTube channel. Entries must be in by May 31, 2014.
• Waiting for an EcoDiesel Ram? You and a lot of other people. While Chrysler originally said the new diesels would be available in the third quarter of 2013, dealers just started taking orders in February, says Automotive News. They should be in stock soon.
• Robby Gordon didn't have the same kind of luck at the Dakar rally that the Mini team had (page 20). In fact, his luck was all kinds of bad. He fought mechanical problems with his HST Gordini race truck throughout the race, getting sidelined for the last time during the 11th stage with an air intake problem. But in typical Gordon fashion, he's already looking ahead to improve the truck for next year.
• Can't get enough of the "Farmers" ad Ram did for the 2013 Super Bowl? Now there's an extended version of the tribute video featuring the complete "So God Made a Farmer" FFA speech given by radio broadcaster Paul Harvey in 1978 and additional farm imagery. You can watch it on YouTube or Ram's site: www.ramtrucks.com/keepplowing.
• Dirt Every Day returns for '14 with a bunch of new shows starting with a pair of episodes involving an old Jeep CJ7 that Fred rescues from ranch duty in Texas, rewires with the help of Painless Performance, and then takes on an adventure road trip just for a slice of pie. Check out the antics and adventures by searching Dirt Every Day on YouTube.com.
Detroit Show Reveal: 2015 GMC Canyon
The second important truck introduction at NAIAS was the 2015 GMC Canyon, sister to the already announced Chevy Colorado. All-new for the 2015 model year, the 2015 GMC Canyon will feature a standard 2.5L inline-four that is currently believed to be worth 193 hp and 184 lb-ft of torque, as well as an optional 3.6L V-6 that will probably net 302 horses and 270 lb-ft of torque. A six-speed transmission is hooked to both. Even more interesting is that in the '16 model year there will be a Duramax 2.8L diesel.
The 2015 GMC Canyon trans is available, but only with the 2.5L extended cab two-by configuration. There will be a base model as well as SLE and SLT. It also features technology borrowed from its big-pickup brother, including the aero grille shutters that close at some speeds to help aerodynamics and therefore fuel economy, a fully boxed ladder frame, and the CornerStep rear bumper. And a first for the segment: electric power steering and AutoTrac automatic four-wheel drive. The chassis also has coilover independent front suspension, four wheel discs, and an available auto-locking rear diff.
So, the specs sound a lot like the Colorado's. How will GM differentiate the two? The idea is that the Chevy will be the sporty midsize truck, while the GMC will be positioned as the more premium offering with "big truck" capability in a smaller package. GM North America President Mark Reuss said at the show that the GMC should bring more conquest sales from owners of other brands' fullsize pickups.
Vintage Cessna, M37 Bring Big Bucks At Auction
Every January, car collectors descend on Scottsdale, Arizona, for a weeklong orgy of circuslike auctions. The Barrett-Jackson auction is the biggest of the bunch, never failing to draw huge crowds, generate headlines, and seemingly make money hand-over-fist. Over the past few years the auction company has set aside many of its "prime-time" auction slots for cars and other vehicles to be sold for charity, and one of the most unusual lots at this year's sale was the pairing of a restored 1959 Cessna L-19E "Bird Dog" and a Dodge M37. Cessna donated the airplane, which had been used in France as a trainer and as such had fairly low hours on the airframe. The Dodge, donated and restored by Iowa's Okoboji Classic Cars, was a field find that underwent a 2,500-hour frame-off restoration.
When the bidding ended on Saturday, the Cessna sold for $400,000, the M37 for $350,000. All proceeds will benefit the Armed Forces Foundation and its efforts to support veterans and their families.
Earth Watch
• SEMA's government watchdogs have alerted us to pending legislation in Hawaii that would make most aftermarket exhaust systems illegal. The problem with the bill is its vague wording. Instead of setting an objective noise-level standard as many states have done (and as SEMA's model bill for this kind of thing sets down), Hawaii's bill directs inspection stations to test vehicles to determine if their exhaust systems "emit noise noticeably greater than that emitted by the vehicle as equipped from the factory." Under the bill, inspection stations found to have issued a certificate of inspection in violation of this provision could be fined up to $1,000 and have their inspection permits suspended or revoked.
• The California Off Road Vehicle Association (CORVA) recently prevailed in a fight to keep the Ocotillo Wells SVRA open in Southern California. Earlier this year, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed suit against California State Parks to stop operations at Ocotillo Wells. CORVA consulted with its attorney, Jesse Barton, and at his recommendation filed for intervenor status in the Superior Court of California. CORVA's demurrer supported State Parks and alleged to the court that the suit filed by PEER had no legal viability and must be dismissed by the court. Judge Timothy Frawley ruled in favor of State Parks and CORVA and upheld the right of State Parks to continue operations at Ocotillo Wells SVRA in the same manner enthusiasts around the state have enjoyed for more than 30 years. Nicely done, CORVA.
Jeepers Jamboree Vendors Back in Georgetown
For the first time in more than 15 years, the Vendor Show and Outdoor Expo that kicks off the Jeeper's Jamboree will be back in Georgetown. On Wednesday, July 23, Georgetown's streets will be lined with booths and semi-truck trailers full of gear, project vehicles and more. Admission is free. To learn more about the Expo—and the trail rides on the Rubicon—go to jeepersjamboree.com.
Back at Altitude
Jeep is offering special Altitude Editions of the Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and Wrangler (seen here) for the '14 model year. Previous Altitude models were distinguished by their blacked-out trim; the new Altitude Jeeps are no different. Wrangler Altitude models, for example, get a matte-black grille with gloss throats, black headlight bezels, black Jeep badges, and a matte-black Wrangler decal on the hood. Inside you'll find black leather seats with black stitching and a leather-wrapped steering wheel with black-painted spokes. The Cherokee and Grand get similar treatments. Look for the Altitude models at dealerships right about now.
Mini Finishes 1-2-3 at Dakar Rally
For the third year in a row, a specially prepped Mini Countryman has won the Dakar Rally, which is now held in South America. This year Mini not only won the event, but members of the 11-car Mini team took First, Second, and Third Places. Seven Minis placed in the top 10, and all 11 Minis finished the race.
Spanish driver Joan "Nani" Roma was the winner, finishing just 51⁄2 minutes ahead of second-place Mini racer Stéphane Peterhansel. This was Roma's first Dakar win in a car; he won on a motorcycle in 2004, back when the rally was still held in Africa.
This year's event consisted of 13 stages that ran through 9,374 km (about 5,800 miles) from Argentina, across the Andes, and into Chile.
Hey, Joe!
Yes, that was Vice President Joe Biden at the Detroit auto show checking out the new iron at Ford's display. FoMoCo Executive Chairman Bill Ford and Congressman John Dingell were among the other bigwigs on the stand with the VP, talking about the "importance of the auto industry," said Ford public relations. We're guessing it was more about which of the chophouses near Cobo Hall served the best breakfast.
Ace: A New Type of OHV
Is it an ATV, a side-by-side, or something else? According to Polaris, its Ace is something wholly new. It is like an ATV but has a chassis you sit down in, a UTV's cagelike protective frame, and a steering wheel instead of handlebars. The driver sits centrally in the Ace and controls the 32hp DOHC engine with a foot throttle. The rear wheels are fully independent and offer 91⁄2 inches of travel. Ground clearance? More than 10 inches. Polaris has equipped the Ace with its on-demand AWD system, which automatically engages when needed and then returns to 2WD when not. Looks like fun to us, and something perfect for Fred to wring out on one of his DED adventures. Stay tuned.
Mopar and the New Monster Truck
Go ahead, guess how long it's been since there's been a new OE monster truck in the Monster Truck Jam series. A year? Two years? Three? Fail. Try more than a decade. Called Mopar Muscle, it's a Ram-based, Mike Miller–driven monster truck with a supercharged version of the 426 Hemi, worth 565 cubes and 2,000 horses. It weighs in at 10,300 pounds and stands 10 feet tall. See it for yourself at the Chrysler Group YouTube channel or monsterjam.com, or go in person to any of the 4Wheel Jamborees this year: May in Lima, Ohio; June in Springfield, Missouri; July in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania; and September in Indianapolis.
• May 2-4: Canidae Tap It Silverstate 300 desert race by Best in the Desert, near Las Vegas, NV. Info: www.bitd.com
• May 3: Adopt-a-Trail work day, Kansas Rocks Recreation Park, Mapleton, KS. Info: www.ksrockspark.com
• May 3: Cadillac Jeepers annual Jeep Blessing, Mesick, MI. Info: CadillacJeepers.com
• May 3: W.E.Rock Dirt Riot MidStates, Shamokin, PA. Info: www.werocklive.com
• May 3: Lone Star Jeep Club Spring Run, Superlift ORV Park, Hot Springs, AR. Info: www.lsjc.org, www.orvpark.com
• May 8-10: Big Bear Jeep Jamboree, Big Bear Lake, CA. Info: www.jeepjamboreeusa.com
• May 8-10: Top of the Ozarks Jeep Jamboree, Seymour, MO. Info: www.jeepjamboreeusa.com
• May 9-11: Molina Ghost Run by the California Association of 4WD Clubs, Hollister Hills SVRA, Hollister, CA. Info: www.cal4wheel.com
• May 10: Getting Started Off-Road Driving Clinic by Badlands Off-Road Adventures, Hungry Valley SVRA, Gorman, CA. Info: 310.374.8047, www.4x4training.com
• May 10-11: W.E.Rock Eastern Series, King Knob, Bridgeport, WV. Info: www.werocklive.com
• May 10-14: NORRA Mexican 1000 Rally, Baja California, Mexico. Info: www.mexican1000.com
• May 15-17: Palo Duro Jeep Jamboree, Amarillo, TX. Info: www.jeepjamboreeusa.com
• May 15-17: Land Between the Lakes Jeep Jamboree, Marshall County, KY. Info: www.jeepjamboreeusa.com
• May 16-18: 4Wheel Jamboree, Allen County Fairgrounds, Lima, OH. Info: www.4wheeljamboree.com
• May 17: Jeep Go Topless Day by Ocean State Jeepsters, Monson, MA. Info: email email@example.com
• May 17: W.E.Rock Dirt Riot Southeast, Gray Rock, Birmingham, AL. Info: www.werocklive.com
• May 17: Membership meeting, Wisconsin Off-Road Vehicle Park, Potawatomi Casino & Lodge, Wabeno, WI. Info: www.WORVPI.org
• May 17-18: Iron Range Offroad driving school, near Minneapolis/St. Paul. MN. Info: www.ironrangeoffroad.com
• May 22-26: Sam's Offroad Memorial Day Run, Superlift ORV Park, Hot Springs, AR. Info: www.orvpark.com
• May 23: Speed Energy Stadium Super Trucks race, Indianapolis, IN. Info: stadiumsupertrucks.com
• May 23-25: Hi Desert Roundup by the California Association of 4WD Clubs, location TBD. Info: www.cal4wheel.com
• May 29-31: Canyon de Chelly Jeep Jamboree, Chinle, AZ. Info: www.jeepjamboreeusa.com
• May 31: W.E.Rock Dirt Riot Central, Canyons Off-Road Park, Fredericksburg, TX. Info: www.werocklive.com
• May 31: Tire Repair & Hi Lift Jack mini clinic by Badlands Off-Road Adventures, Hawthorne, CA. Info: 310.374.8047, www.4x4training.com
• May 31–June 1: Ventura County Off-Road Show, Ventura County Fairgrounds, Ventura, CA. Info: www.venturacountyoffroadshow.com
• May 31–June 1: Speed Energy Stadium Super Trucks race, Detroit, MI. Info: stadiumsupertrucks.com
• Note: If you have a 4WD event you want us to publicize, please send the date, location, a description of the event, and contact info—phone numbers and/or email/website address—to Calendar, 4-Wheel & Off-Road magazine, 831 S. Douglas St., El Segundo, CA 90245; fax 818.566.8501; email email@example.com. Please submit your info at least four months in advance of the event due to our press lead times.


text:
Ukraine's missed revolution
Issued on: Modified:
Ukrainians are voting in their first Presidential Election since the Orange Revolution, the popular movement that swept Viktor Yushchenko to power five years ago. This time though, voters rejected Yushchenko in the first round of polling. So what is left of the Orange dreams?
Our reporters Virginie Herz and Gulliver Cragg travelled from West to East and found a nation despairing of its politicians, but prouder than ever of its culture and independence.
Daily newsletterReceive essential international news every morningSubscribe


text:
"The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. Local churches provide the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs" (The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 2008, ¶120.
Church & Society
The twenty-six Guidelines cover church leadership areas including Church Council and Small Membership Church; the administrative areas of Finance and Trustees; and ministry areas focused on nurture, outreach, and witness including Worship, Evangelism, Stewardship, and Christian Education, age-level ministries, Communications, and more.
Read More


text:
The case of Blockowicz v. Williams, — F.Supp.2d —, 2009 WL 4929111 (N.D. Ill. December 21, 2009), which I posted on last week is worthy of discussion in that it raises the question of whether website operators like Ripoff Report could get off too easily when they knowingly host harmful third party content. Immunity under 47 U.S.C. 230 is often criticized for going too far in shielding operators. Under Section 230, sites cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by third party information content providers. This means that even when the site operator is put on notice of the content, it cannot face, for example, defamation liability for the continued availability of that content.
Don't get me wrong — the Blockowicz case had nothing to do with Section 230. Although Ben Sheffner is routinely sharp in his legal analysis, I disagree with his assessment that Section 230 was the reason for the court's decision. In the comments to Ben's post that I just linked to, Ben gets into conversation with Ripoff Report's general counsel, whom I believe correctly notes that the decision was not based on Section 230. Ben argues that had Section 230 not provided immunity, the plaintiffs would have been able to go after Ripoff Report directly, and therefore Section 230 is to blame. That's kind of like saying if arson were legal, plaintiffs could just go burn down Ripoff Report's datacenter. But you don't hear anyone blaming arson laws for this decision.
Even though Section 230 didn't form the basis of the court's decision in favor of Ripoff Report, the notion of a website operator "acting in concert" with its users is intriguing. Clearly the policy of Section 230 is to place some distance, legally speaking, between site operator and producer of user-generated content. And the whole idea behind the requirement in copyright law that infringement must arise from a volitional act and not an automatic action of the system is a first cousin to this issue. See, e.g., Religious Tech. Center v. Netcom, 907 F.Supp. 1361, 1370 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ("[T]here should still be some element of volition or causation which is lacking where a defendant's system is merely used to create a copy by a third party").
For the web to continue to develop, we are going to need this continued protection of the intermediary. We're going to see functions of the semantic web appear with more frequency in our everyday online lives. From a practical perspective, there will be even more distance — a continuing divergence between a provider's will and the nature of the content. So as we get into the technologies that will make the web smarter, and our experience of it more robust and helpful, we'll need notions of intermediary immunity more and not less.
That notion of an increasing need for intermediary immunity underscores how important it is that intermediaries act responsibly. No doubt people misunderstand the holdings of cases like this one. By refusing to voluntarily take down obviously defamatory material, and challenging a court order to do so, Ripoff Report puts a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Sure there's the First Amendment and all that, but where's a sense of reasonable decency? Sure there's the idea that free flowing information supports democracy and all that, but has anyone stopped to think what could happen when the politicians get involved again?
We are fortunate that Congress was as equinamimous and future-minded as it was in 1996 when it enacted the immunity provisions of Section 230. But results like the one in the Blockowicz case are going to be misunderstood. There's a hue and cry already about this decision, in that it appears to leave no recourse. Section 230 wasn't involved, but it still got the blame. Even the judge was "sympathetic to the [plaintiffs'] plight."
So maybe we need, real quickly, another decision like the Roommates.com case, that reminds us that website operators don't always get a free ride.


text:
One Direction Announce North American Tour
OMG! One Direction are taking America by storm, and now the British boy band has announced a string of North American tour dates, kicking off on May 24.
Twenty-one dates have been posted, with more to come, and will take the guys all over the U.S., with one stop in Toronto, Ontario. The tour will hit arenas on both coasts, and fans can snap up their tickets, beginning on March 24.
This isn't the first time American fans have seen the boy band live. They opened for Big Time Rush over the course of 10 dates earlier this year.
Today is a big day for the 'X Factor' alums — not only have they announced this exciting tour, but they are also celebrating 'Up All Night' debuting at No. 1 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 200. The guys actually set a record with their accomplishment, becoming the first U.K. group to debut at No. 1 with their first album.
One Direction will be performing at the 2012 Kids' Choice Awards on March 31, and are slated as the musical guest for the April 7 episode of 'Saturday Night Live.' The boys will also enchant audiences with their very own TV show on Nickelodeon, the networked confirmed.
One Direction 2012 Tour Dates
5/24 — Fairfax, Va. | Patriot Center
5/25 — East Rutherford, N.J. | IZOD Center
5/26 — New York, N.Y. | Beacon Theatre
5/28 — Philadelphia, Pa. | Tower Theatre
5/29 — Toronto, Ontario | Molson Amphitheatre
6/1 — Detroit, Mich. | Fox Theatre
6/2 — Chicago, Ill. | Allstate Arena
6/8 — San Diego, Calif. | Viejas Arena
6/9 — Las Vegas, Nev. | Planet Hollywood
6/10 — Phoenix, Ariz. | Comerica Theatre
6/13 — San Jose, Calif. | Events Center
6/14 — Oakland, Calif. | Paramount Theatre
6/16 — Los Angeles, Calif. | Gibson Amphitheatre
6/17 — Anaheim, Calif. | The Theatre at Honda Center
6/23 — Dallas, Texas | Gexa Energy Pavillion
6/24 — Houston, Texas | Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavillion
6/26 — Atlanta, Ga. | The Arena at Gwinett Center
6/27 — Charlotte, N.C. | Time Warner Cable Arena
6/29 — Tampa, Fla. | 1-800-Ask-Gary Amphitheatre
6/30 — Orlando, Fla. | Amway Center
7/1 — Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. | Bank Atlantic Center


text:
Denise Richards was stunned and embarrassed when a private letter she sent to Child Protective Services officials regarding the welfare of her ex-husband Charlie Sheen's sons went public.
The former "Bond" girl relinquished responsibility of 4-year-old twins Max and Bob earlier this month after urging Los Angeles CPS bosses to consider having the boys evaluated for behavioral issues.
In a letter to a leading official, she detailed what horrors the twins could be, taunting and attacking her daughters and her pets and playing with their feces.
But she never intended the letter to go viral and was horrified when was picked up by media outlets.
She tells "Entertainment Tonight," "I was sick about it. … I was angry. … Then I stopped and had to think, 'Oh my God, what did I write in that?' It was a very personal thing. I was embarrassed. … I thought, 'Maybe I should have done it differently.'
"It wasn't, like, a court document, it wasn't a declaration, I purposely went that way to write something personal as a mom and all of that. I was very upset that something like that would become public."
Richards took on responsibility of Max and Bob and welcomed them into her home when their mother, Brooke Mueller, checked into rehab following a drugs raid on her home earlier this year.
The boys' uncle – Mueller's brother – has been given custody of them and he has moved in to his sister's former home to care for them as she tries to regain custody.


text:
Kim Kardashian and her sisters, Kourtney and Khloe, are to be immortalized as Barbie pal dolls, reports Us Weekly, in a limited edition line.
A source tells the new Us Weekly, on stands Friday, that the reality stars will be immortalized as Barbie's pals in an upcoming limited-edition doll line. "The dolls will reflect the girls' measurements and may even come in Kardashian-designed outfits," says a source.
It was probably inevitable, given that their empire currently includes everything from Twitter-themed nail polishes to televised marriages, says MTV.com.
Kim seemed to hint that a team-up with the folks at Mattel — the brand behind the iconic doll — was in the works during Christmas, when she took to her Twitter account to post a series of messages to Barbie's "totally official and completely fabulous" account.
In one tweet, she sent "Barbs" holiday well-wishes and asked what her longtime beau Ken got her for Christmas.
E! News is reporting the dolls should be available later this year.


text:
About Us
Just Another is a creative management agency with a focus and passion for creating a visual and visceral experience in everything we do. Representing a plethora of?local, national and international artists, Just Another specialises in event management, commercial design, apparel, exhibition curation, and street art. We do it all.
Known in the creative community as the go-to agency, Just Another is?dedicated in making your vision come to life. We basically get shit done, with some finesse and flair. We produce some of the most memorable designs and installations, work with respected big-name brands, and launch the careers of numerous artists.
There is no project too big or too small for us, we are all about matching your vision with the industry's best creative talent in order to inspire your senses.
You have the idea, and we will make it a reality. We aren't like other agencies,?we are Just Another.


text:
Stage 1 Mapping for your 2010 STi with OpenSourceThis particular map is designed for the 2010 STi with the following mods:
-Stock Airbox with K&N Part # 33-2304 or -AEM Cold Air Intake Part #21-478WR
Additional Information
Further instructions will be provided upon receipt of your new map. This will include details and proper map break-in procedures/tips. Target Boost is 17.0psi in 4th gear which will taper down by redline. 3rd gear will see around 16.50psi. 5th and 6th may see closer to 18psi which is perfectly normal. Air Fuel Ratios should be around 11.4:1 during spool, 11.0:1 in mid, and 10.6-10.8 by redline. I highly recommend monitoring the Air Fuel Ratio with a wideband o2 sensor such as the AEM Uego, or the Innovate LC-1 if available.
Copyright 2011 XPTTuning.com. All Rights Reserved.
Product 2/3
This product was added to our catalog on Tuesday 13 October, 2009.


text:
On the narrow street leading to the home of Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel, there are orders for no parking and no stopping.
Unless you're invited, there is no way to reach the house serving as backdrop for the third Hillary Clinton campaign fundraiser in SoCal in just two days.
The Democratic presidential nominee will wrap her a two-day visit to Los Angeles and Orange counties Tuesday with a star-studded fundraiser at the Timberlake-Biel Hollywood Hills abode before heading on to two fundraisers in Laguna Beach.
It's at the home of the iconic pop singer where a luncheon running at $33,400 per person will be held.
Everyone from actors Tobey Maguire and Jennifer Aniston to TV producer Shonda Rhimes are expected.
The event was punctuated by a tweet from the super-star couple with Clinton sandwiched in the middle, featuring the hashtag "I'm with her."
The event was originally scheduled to be hosted by actor Leonardo DiCaprio. A change in the production schedule for DiCaprio's upcoming climate change documentary meant the Oscar winner could not attend, according to People magazine, which cited a source close to the event.
U.S. & World
Clinton will then hold another $33,400 per person lunch fundraiser in Laguna Beach, which includes a photo with Clinton. Couples paying $100,000 are also admitted to a host reception with Clinton, according to an invitation obtained by City News Service.
Clinton will conclude her Southland visit with another Laguna Beach fundraiser, with tickets priced at $2,700, the maximum individual contribution to a presidential candidate in the general election under federal law. Guests raising $27,000 are admitted to a host reception with Clinton.
The $33,400 figure is the maximum amount an individual can contribute to a national party committee in a year.
Clinton began the visit Monday by taping an appearance on the ABC late- night talk show "Jimmy Kimmel Live" and holding two fundraisers. In her appearance with Kimmel, Clinton made light of both the revelation that the FBI collected nearly 15,000 new emails in its investigation of her and Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani questioning her health.
Clinton told Kimmel "my emails are so boring and I'm embarrassed about that."
When Kimmel asked 68-year-old Clinton about the questions about her health, she offered up her hand and said "take my pulse," explaining "to make sure I'm still alive."
Kimmel then took her hand and gasped, telling the audience, "Oh my god, there's nothing there."
Clinton implied that the stories are baseless, saying sarcastically, "With every breath I take, I feel like it's a new lease on life."
Much of the speculation stems from a concussion Clinton sustained in December 2012 after fainting, an episode her doctor has attributed to a stomach virus and dehydration. Giuliani urged voters to "go online and put down `Hillary Clinton illness,"' in an interview with Fox News on Sunday, saying the next morning that she "looks sick." Trump has questioned her stamina at campaign rallies and speeches, saying in a foreign policy address earlier this month that she "lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS".
When Kimmel asked about her preparations for the three debates with Trump, Clinton said she's taking the match-up seriously but is getting ready for "wacky stuff."
Her first fundraiser Monday was at the home of Basketball Hall of Fame member Earvin "Magic" Johnson near Beverly Hills, with co-hosts including actors Denzel Washington and Samuel L. Jackson. The second fundraiser at the Beverly Hills home of Haim Saban, the chairman and CEO of the Saban Capital Group, Inc., whose assets include the Spanish-language television network Univision.
Tickets began at $2,700 per person, according to an invitation obtained by City News Service.
Like nearly all fundraisers for presidential candidates, the events were closed to reporters.
Clinton's visit began one day after the Republican National Committee released a 19-second paid web ad critical of "Hillary Clinton's liberal elite summer tour with frequent stops in Beverly Hills, Hollywood and Cape Cod."


text:
Friday, November 23, 2012
Illegal cigarette tax cheats
From the NY Post:
A Queens mother and her son were arrested with 677 cartons of illegal Asian cigarettes and $132,000 in cash, authorities announced today.
Ying-Jian Lin, 48, and Xiao Lin, 23, face up to four years in prison for peddling the shady smokes, which are untaxed and don't carry the required surgeon general warnings, according to a Queens District Attorney Richard Brown.
Investigators watched the son pick up the contraband cartons from a Flushing garage and carry them to a small grocery store where his mother was spotted selling the cigarettes, Brown said.
Authorities said they found the cash --- mostly in $50 and $100 bills --- in a safe-deposit box.
Brown said the pair would have cheated the city out of about $45,000 in taxes on the seized smokes alone.
12 comments:
Flushing is the home base for nefarious activity, once again. I'm not surprised.
That's why I no longer use "Flushing" in my return address anymore--prefering "Queens. N.Y." instead--not that "Queens" is top drawer.
It's better than "Flushing"--which most of our visitors assume--is just a low class dirty ghetto.
I'm tired of having to explain to them that not all of Flushing is like that--only sections of the downtown hub.
- Friday, November 23, 2012
yea, hello, where is law enforcement? stand on the corner of main street and roosevelt ave for 5 secounds and watch the women in the middle of the street (literally) holding suit cases full of chinese cigerettes, there are at least 2 women there selling illegal cigs, all day long! selling them in broad day light! where are the media camereas???? I swear, downtown flushing is a lawless, tax free, free for all state!
- Friday, November 23, 2012
No worry--Jimmy Meng has connection with the DA office and can get them off, for the price of a fruit basket.
- Friday, November 23, 2012
Here in North Flushing late model cars deliver illegal cigarettes right to my Asian (Mostly Korean) neighbors homes. When the trunk is open it's full of cigarettes.
It's not only downtown Flushing that stinks of lawlessness it's spreading to all of Queens.
- Friday, November 23, 2012
Making a 50 cent pack cost 13 dollars (12.50 taxes). What the hell did you expect? Remember Proabition didn't work either except more crime and more alcoholics
- Friday, November 23, 2012
Well the lazy crooked (???) 109th PCT isn't doing much about the lawlessness.
- Friday, November 23, 2012
It's a question of unpaid taxes...maybe even money laundering.
I don't give a flying f--k if someone wants to smoke possibly tainted bootleg Chinese cigarettes!
- Friday, November 23, 2012
Late model limos deliver girls too.
- Friday, November 23, 2012
Black markets always spring up when you tax something to death, the equivalent of making it illegal. Criminals profit. Along with crooked politicians (redundant, I know).
- Friday, November 23, 2012
Obviously it's the wild wild west in the Asian community - everything goes law enforcement has no clue how to police them! Everyone seems to be driving late model Benz or Audi - I wonder how and why!
- Friday, November 23, 2012
"Anonymous said...
Late model limos deliver girls too."
Yes they are using Craigslist and local newspapers to perform "Out-calls" and deliver the girls right to the John's house. Oldest profession in the world come to Flushing with a bang !
- Saturday, November 24, 2012
according to the NYS Dept. of Taxation & Finance ,the cigarette excise tax on one pack of 20 is $4.35., the highest in the nation.
the NYC excise tax is $1.50 +$4.35 = $5.85 tax /pack.
did not the lawyers (liars) win a class action law suit to make the cigarette companies pay for education in the public schools in nyc? why are the "pupils "a failure at a rate of 55% who do not graduate ?
and the 45% ,who do , can not find a job in nyc with it's 9-15 % unemployment rate.
- Saturday, November 24, 2012