Bayesian Data-Model Fit Assessment for Structural Equation Modeling

Bayesian approaches to modeling are receiving an increasing amount of attention in the areas of model construction and estimation in factor analysis, structural equation modeling (SEM), and related latent variable models. However, model diagnostics and model criticism remain relatively understudied aspects of Bayesian SEM. This article describes and illustrates key features of Bayesian approaches to model diagnostics and assessing data–model fit of structural equation models, discussing their merits relative to traditional procedures.     

A Comparison of CFA,ESEM, and BSEM in Test Structure Analysis

Minor cross-loadings on non-targeted factors are often found in psychological or other instruments. Forcing them to zero in confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) leads to biased estimates and distorted structures. Alternatively, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM) have been proposed. In this research, we compared the performance of the traditional independent-clusters-confirmatory-factor-analysis (ICM-CFA), the nonstandard CFA, ESEM with the Geomin- or Target-rotations, and BSEMs with different cross-loading priors (correct; small- or large-variance priors with zero mean) using simulated data with cross-loadings. Four factors were considered: the number of factors, the size of factor correlations, the cross-loading mean, and the loading variance. Results indicated that ICM-CFA performed the worst. ESEMs were generally superior to CFAs but inferior to BSEM with correct priors that provided the precise estimation. BSEM with large- or small-variance priors performed similarly while the prior mean for cross-loadings was more important than the prior variance.     

Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Practical Considerations

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a versatile statistical modeling tool. Its estimation techniques, modeling capacities, and breadth of applications are expanding rapidly. This module introduces some common terminologies. General steps of SEM are discussed along with important considerations in each step. Simple examples are provided to illustrate some of the ideas for beginners. In addition, several popular specialized SEM software programs are briefly discussed with regard to their features and availability. The intent of this module is to focus on foundational issues to inform readers of the potentials as well as the limitations of SEM. Interested readers are encouraged to consult additional references for advanced model types and more application examples.     

When Are Multidimensional Data Unidimensional Enough for Structural Equation Modeling? An Evaluation of the DETECT Multidimensionality Index

In structural equation modeling (SEM), researchers need to evaluate whether item response data, which are often multidimensional, can be modeled with a unidimensional measurement model without seriously biasing the parameter estimates. This issue is commonly addressed through testing the fit of a unidimensional model specification, a strategy previously determined to be problematic. As an alternative to the use of fit indexes, we considered the utility of a statistical tool that was expressly designed to assess the degree of departure from unidimensionality in a data set. Specifically, we evaluated the ability of the DETECT “essential unidimensionality” index to predict the bias in parameter estimates that results from misspecifying a unidimensional model when the data are multidimensional. We generated multidimensional data from bifactor structures that varied in general factor strength, number of group factors, and items per group factor; a unidimensional measurement model was then fit and parameter bias recorded. Although DETECT index values were generally predictive of parameter bias, in many cases, the degree of bias was small even though DETECT indicated significant multidimensionality. Thus we do not recommend the stand-alone use of DETECT benchmark values to either accept or reject a unidimensional measurement model. However, when DETECT was used in combination with additional indexes of general factor strength and group factor structure, parameter bias was highly predictable. Recommendations for judging the severity of potential model misspecifications in practice are provided.     

The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model for Longitudinal Dyadic Data: An Implementation in the SEM Framework

In dyadic research, the actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) is widely used to model the effect of a predictor measured across dyad members on one’s own and one’s partner outcome. When such dyadic data are measured repeatedly over time, both the non-independence within couples and the non-independence over time need to be accounted for. In this paper, we present a longitudinal extension of the APIM, the L-APIM, that allows for both stable and time-varying sources of non-independence. Its implementation is readily available in multilevel software, such as proc mixed in SAS, but is lacking in the structural equation modeling (SEM) framework. We tackle the computational challenges associated with its SEM-implementation and propose a user-friendly free application for the L-APIM, which can be found at http://fgisteli.shinyapps.io/Shiny_LDD. As an illustration, we explore the actor and partner effects of positive relationship feelings on next day’s intimacy using 3-week diary data of 66 heterosexual couples.