When the multivariate normality assumption is violated in structural equation modeling, a leading remedy involves estimation via normal theory maximum likelihood with robust corrections to standard errors. We propose that this approach might not be best for forming confidence intervals for quantities with sampling distributions that are slow to approach normality, or for functions of model parameters. We implement and study a robust analog to likelihood-based confidence intervals based on inverting the robust chi-square difference test of Satorra (2000). We compare robust standard errors and the robust likelihood-based approach versus resampling methods in confirmatory factor analysis (Studies 1 & 2) and mediation analysis models (Study 3) for both single parameters and functions of model parameters, and under a variety of nonnormal data generation conditions. The percentile bootstrap emerged as the method with the best calibrated coverage rates and should be preferred if resampling is possible, followed by the robust likelihood-based approach.