title: Interpreting the CFI and TLI when RMSEA is lower than 0.158?
body: <p>When reporting on the absolute fit of a model (for instance a factor model or structure equation model), many different indices are used. Most commonly people report on chi-squared, RMSEA, TLI or CFI. (there are many more)</p>
  
  <p>I have been reading the following on David A. Kenny's website and I was wondering whether someone could explain this to me: </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>"A reasonable rule of thumb is to examine the RMSEA (see below) for
    the null model  and make sure that is no smaller than 0.158. An RMSEA
    for the model of 0.05 and a TLI of .90, implies that the RMSEA of the
    null model is 0.158. If the RMSEA for the null model is less than
    0.158, an incremental measure of fit may not be that informative. So far as I know, this mathematical fact that a model whose null model
    RMSEA is less than 0.158 and whose RMSEA is 0.05 must have a TLI of
    less than .90 is something that has never been published but is in
    fact true. (David A. Kenny: <a href="http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm</a>)"</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Can someone explain this? </p>