The equal correlation baseline model: A reply to marsh

Marsh and I continue to disagree on issues relating to the signs of relationships, the importance of scaling, the value of existing rules of thumb, and the relative usefulness of M0 and M= in the potential development of new inferential approaches to fit assessment. I introduce an alternative model, M=, to clarify the distinction between substantive and baseline models. However, I partially endorse Marsh's compromise proposal. I also offer tentative heuristic values for interpreting fit indices that involve M=.