Using a confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) model as a paradigmatic basis for all comparisons, this article reviews and contrasts important features related to 3 of the most widely-used structural equation modeling (SEM) computer programs: AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle, 1999), EQS 6 (Bentler, 2000), and LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996b). Comparisons focus on (a) key aspects of the programs that bear on the specification and testing of CFA models-preliminary analysis of data, and model specification, estimation, assessment, and misspecification; and (b) other important issues that include treatment of incomplete, nonnormally-distributed, or categorically-scaled data. It is expected that this comparative review will provide readers with at least a flavor of the approach taken by each program with respect to both the application of SEM within the framework of a CFA model, and the critically important issues, previously noted, related to data under study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barbara M. Byrne (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: