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.     

An NCME Instructional Module on Item‐Fit Statistics for Item Response Theory Models

Drawing valid inferences from item response theory (IRT) models is contingent upon a good fit of the data to the model. Violations of model‐data fit have numerous consequences, limiting the usefulness and applicability of the model. This instructional module provides an overview of methods used for evaluating the fit of IRT models. Upon completing this module, the reader will have an understanding of traditional and Bayesian approaches for evaluating model‐data fit of IRT models, the relative advantages of each approach, and the software available to implement each method.     

The Model Size Effect in SEM: Inflated Goodness-of-Fit Statistics Are Due to the Size of the Covariance Matrix

The size of a model has been shown to critically affect the goodness of approximation of the model fit statistic T to the asymptotic chi-square distribution in finite samples. It is not clear, however, whether this “model size effect” is a function of the number of manifest variables, the number of free parameters, or both. It is demonstrated by means of 2 Monte Carlo computer simulation studies that neither the number of free parameters to be estimated nor the model degrees of freedom systematically affect the T statistic when the number of manifest variables is held constant. Increasing the number of manifest variables, however, is associated with a severe bias. These results imply that model fit drastically depends on the size of the covariance matrix and that future studies involving goodness-of-fit statistics should always consider the number of manifest variables, but can safely neglect the influence of particular model specifications.     

Sensitivity of SEM Fit Indexes With Respect to Violations of Uncorrelated Errors

This simulation study investigated the sensitivity of commonly used cutoff values for global-model-fit indexes, with regard to different degrees of violations of the assumption of uncorrelated errors in confirmatory factor analysis. It is shown that the global-model-fit indexes fell short in identifying weak to strong model misspecifications under both different degrees of correlated error terms, and various simulation conditions. On the basis of an example misspecification search, it is argued that global model testing must be supplemented by this procedure. Implications for the use of structural equation modeling are discussed.     

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.     

A Poor Person’s Posterior Predictive Checking of Structural Equation Models

Posterior predictive model checking (PPMC) is a Bayesian model checking method that compares the observed data to (plausible) future observations from the posterior predictive distribution. We propose an alternative to PPMC in the context of structural equation modeling, which we term the poor person’s PPMC (PP-PPMC), for the situation wherein one cannot afford (or is unwilling) to draw samples from the full posterior. Using only by-products of likelihood-based estimation (maximum likelihood estimate and information matrix), the PP-PPMC offers a natural method to handle parameter uncertainty in model fit assessment. In particular, a coupling relationship between the classical p values from the model fit chi-square test and the predictive p values from the PP-PPMC method is carefully examined, suggesting that PP-PPMC might offer an alternative, principled approach for model fit assessment. We also illustrate the flexibility of the PP-PPMC approach by applying it to case-influence diagnostics.     

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.