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.     

Comparing Squared Multiple Correlation Coefficients Using Structural Equation Modeling

In social science research, a common topic in multiple regression analysis is to compare the squared multiple correlation coefficients in different populations. Existing methods based on asymptotic theories (Olkin & Finn, 1995) and bootstrapping (Chan, 2009) are available but these can only handle a 2-group comparison. Another method based on structural equation modeling (SEM) has been proposed recently. However, this method has three disadvantages. First, it requires the user to explicitly specify the sample R² as a function in terms of the basic SEM model parameters, which is sometimes troublesome and error prone. Second, it requires the specification of nonlinear constraints, which is not available in some popular SEM software programs. Third, it is for a 2-group comparison primarily. In this article, a 2-stage SEM method is proposed as an alternative. Unlike all other existing methods, the proposed method is simple to use, and it does not require any specific programming features such as the specification of nonlinear constraints. More important, the method allows a simultaneous comparison of 3 or more groups. A real example is given to illustrate the proposed method using EQS, a popular SEM software program.     

Bootstrapping Confidence Intervals for Fit Indexes in Structural Equation Modeling

Bootstrapping approximate fit indexes in structural equation modeling (SEM) is of great importance because most fit indexes do not have tractable analytic distributions. Model-based bootstrap, which has been proposed to obtain the distribution of the model chi-square statistic under the null hypothesis (Bollen & Stine, 1992), is not theoretically appropriate for obtaining confidence intervals (CIs) for fit indexes because it assumes the null is exactly true. On the other hand, naive bootstrap is not expected to work well for those fit indexes that are based on the chi-square statistic, such as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI), because sample noncentrality is a biased estimate of the population noncentrality. In this article we argue that a recently proposed bootstrap approach due to Yuan, Hayashi, and Yanagihara (YHY; 2007) is ideal for bootstrapping fit indexes that are based on the chi-square. This method transforms the data so that the “parent” population has the population noncentrality parameter equal to the estimated noncentrality in the original sample. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the performance of the YHY bootstrap and the naive bootstrap for 4 indexes: RMSEA, CFI, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). We found that for RMSEA and CFI, the CIs under the YHY bootstrap had relatively good coverage rates for all conditions, whereas the CIs under the naive bootstrap had very low coverage rates when the fitted model had large degrees of freedom. However, for GFI and SRMR, the CIs under both bootstrap methods had poor coverage rates in most conditions.     

New Ways to Evaluate Goodness of Fit: A Note on Using Equivalence Testing to Assess Structural Equation Models

Structural equation models are typically evaluated on the basis of goodness-of-fit indexes. Despite their popularity, agreeing what value these indexes should attain to confidently decide between the acceptance and rejection of a model has been greatly debated. A recently proposed approach by means of equivalence testing has been recommended as a superior way to evaluate the goodness of fit of models. The approach has also been proposed as providing a necessary vehicle that can be used to advance the inferential nature of structural equation modeling as a confirmatory tool. The purpose of this article is to introduce readers to key ideas in equivalence testing and illustrate its use for conducting model–data fit assessments. Two confirmatory factor analysis models in which a priori specified latent variable models with known structure and tested against data are used as examples. It is advocated that whenever the goodness of fit of a model is to be assessed researchers should always examine the resulting values obtained via the equivalence testing approach.     

Fit for a Bayesian: An Evaluation of PPP and DIC for Structural Equation Modeling

Despite its importance to structural equation modeling, model evaluation remains underdeveloped in the Bayesian SEM framework. Posterior predictive p-values (PPP) and deviance information criteria (DIC) are now available in popular software for Bayesian model evaluation, but they remain underutilized. This is largely due to the lack of recommendations for their use. To address this problem, PPP and DIC were evaluated in a series of Monte Carlo simulation studies. The results show that both PPP and DIC are influenced by severity of model misspecification, sample size, model size, and choice of prior. The cutoffs PPP < 0.10 and ?DIC > 7 work best in the conditions and models tested here to maintain low false detection rates and misspecified model selection rates, respectively. The recommendations provided in this study will help researchers evaluate their models in a Bayesian SEM analysis and set the stage for future development and evaluation of Bayesian SEM fit indices.     

Implementing Restricted Maximum Likelihood Estimation in Structural Equation Models

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is now a generic modeling framework for many multivariate techniques applied in the social and behavioral sciences. Many statistical models can be considered either as special cases of SEM or as part of the latent variable modeling framework. One popular extension is the use of SEM to conduct linear mixed-effects modeling (LMM) such as cross-sectional multilevel modeling and latent growth modeling. It is well known that LMM can be formulated as structural equation models. However, one main difference between the implementations in SEM and LMM is that maximum likelihood (ML) estimation is usually used in SEM, whereas restricted (or residual) maximum likelihood (REML) estimation is the default method in most LMM packages. This article shows how REML estimation can be implemented in SEM. Two empirical examples on latent growth model and meta-analysis are used to illustrate the procedures implemented in OpenMx. Issues related to implementing REML in SEM are discussed.     

Multilevel Factorial Invariance in n-Level Structural Equation Modeling (nSEM)

We present a multigroup multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model and a procedure for testing multilevel factorial invariance in n-level structural equation modeling (nSEM). Multigroup multilevel CFA introduces a complexity when the group membership at the lower level intersects the clustered structure, because the observations in different groups but in the same cluster are not independent of one another. nSEM provides a framework in which the multigroup multilevel data structure is represented with the dependency between groups at the lower level properly taken into account. The procedure for testing multilevel factorial invariance is illustrated with an empirical example using an R package xxm2.     

Automated Selection of Robust Individual-Level Structural Equation Models for Time Series Data

In order to analyze intensive longitudinal data collected across multiple individuals, researchers frequently have to decide between aggregating all individuals or analyzing each individual separately. This paper presents an R package, gimme, which allows for the automatic specification of individual-level structural equation models that combine group-, subgroup-, and individual-level information. This R package is a complement of the GIMME program currently available via a combination of MATLAB and LISREL. By capitalizing on the flexibility of R and the capabilities of the existing structural equation modeling package lavaan, gimme allows for the automated specification and estimation of group-, subgroup-, and individual-level relations in time series data from within a structural equation modeling framework. Applications include daily diary data as well as functional magnetic resonance imaging data.     

Assessing Fit in Structural Equation Models: A Monte-Carlo Evaluation of RMSEA Versus SRMR Confidence Intervals and Tests of Close Fit

We compare the accuracy of confidence intervals (CIs) and tests of close fit based on the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with those based on the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Investigations used normal and nonnormal data with models ranging from p = 10 to 60 observed variables. CIs and tests of close fit based on the SRMR are generally accurate across all conditions (even at p = 60 with nonnormal data). In contrast, CIs and tests of close fit based on the RMSEA are only accurate in small models. In larger models (p ≥ 30), they incorrectly suggest that models do not fit closely, particularly if sample size is less than 500.     

利用不变集方法求解KdV型方程

不变集方法是一种构造非线性偏微分方程精确解的简便而有效的方法,文章利用不变集的思想方法,讨论了KdV型方程在特殊情况下的解,并且得到了上述方程的一些有意义的精确解.     

Effect Analysis Using Nonlinear Structural Equation Mixture Modeling

In this article, we present an approach for comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of interventions based on nonlinear structural equation mixture models (NSEMM). We provide definitions of average and conditional effects and show how they can be computed. We extend the traditional moderated regression approach to include latent continous and discrete (mixture) variables as well as their higher order interactions, quadratic or more general nonlinear relationships. This new approach can be considered a combination of the recently proposed EffectLiteR approach and the NSEMM approach. A key advantage of this synthesis is that it gives applied researchers the opportunity to gain greater insight into the effectiveness of the intervention. For example, it makes it possible to consider structural equation models for situations where the treatment is noneffective for extreme values of a latent covariate but is effective for medium values, as we illustrate using an example from the educational sciences.     

Bayesian Model Averaging Over Directed Acyclic Graphs With Implications for the Predictive Performance of Structural Equation Models

This article examines Bayesian model averaging as a means of addressing predictive performance in Bayesian structural equation models. The current approach to addressing the problem of model uncertainty lies in the method of Bayesian model averaging. We expand the work of Madigan and his colleagues by considering a structural equation model as a special case of a directed acyclic graph. We then provide an algorithm that searches the model space for submodels and obtains a weighted average of the submodels using posterior model probabilities as weights. Our simulation study provides a frequentist evaluation of our Bayesian model averaging approach and indicates that when the true model is known, Bayesian model averaging does not yield necessarily better predictive performance compared to nonaveraged models. However, our case study using data from an international large-scale assessment reveals that the model-averaged submodels provide better posterior predictive performance compared to the initially specified model.     

Evaluating Model Fit and Structural Coefficient Bias: A Bayesian Approach to Multilevel Bifactor Model Misspecification

Appropriate model specification is fundamental to unbiased parameter estimates and accurate model interpretations in structural equation modeling. Thus detecting potential model misspecification has drawn the attention of many researchers. This simulation study evaluates the efficacy of the Bayesian approach (the posterior predictive checking, or PPC procedure) under multilevel bifactor model misspecification (i.e., ignoring a specific factor at the within level). The impact of model misspecification on structural coefficients was also examined in terms of bias and power. Results showed that the PPC procedure performed better in detecting multilevel bifactor model misspecification, when the misspecification became more severe and sample size was larger. Structural coefficients were increasingly negatively biased at the within level, as model misspecification became more severe. Model misspecification at the within level affected the between-level structural coefficient estimates more when data dependency was lower and the number of clusters was smaller. Implications for researchers are discussed.     

Instrumental Variables Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) vs. Maximum Likelihood Structural Equation Modeling of Causal Effects in Linear Regression Models

In the presence of omitted variables or similar validity threats, regression estimates are biased. Unbiased estimates (the causal effects) can be obtained in large samples by fitting instead the Instrumental Variables Regression (IVR) model. The IVR model can be estimated using structural equation modeling (SEM) software or using Econometric estimators such as two-stage least squares (2SLS). We describe 2SLS using SEM terminology, and report a simulation study in which we generated data according to a regression model in the presence of omitted variables and fitted (a) a regression model using ordinary least squares, (b) an IVR model using maximum likelihood (ML) as implemented in SEM software, and (c) an IVR model using 2SLS. Coverage rates of the causal effect using regression methods are always unacceptably low (often 0). When using the IVR model, accurate coverage is obtained across all conditions when N = 500. Even when the IVR model is misspecified, better coverage than regression is generally obtained. Differences between 2SLS and ML are small and favor 2SLS in small samples (N ≤ 100).     

A Bayesian Approach to Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling With Continuous and Dichotomous Outcomes

Multilevel Structural equation models are most often estimated from a frequentist framework via maximum likelihood. However, as shown in this article, frequentist results are not always accurate. Alternatively, one can apply a Bayesian approach using Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation methods. This simulation study compared estimation quality using Bayesian and frequentist approaches in the context of a multilevel latent covariate model. Continuous and dichotomous variables were examined because it is not yet known how different types of outcomes—most notably categorical—affect parameter recovery in this modeling context. Within the Bayesian estimation framework, the impact of diffuse, weakly informative, and informative prior distributions were compared. Findings indicated that Bayesian estimation may be used to overcome convergence problems and improve parameter estimate bias. Results highlight the differences in estimation quality between dichotomous and continuous variable models and the importance of prior distribution choice for cluster-level random effects.     

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.     

Comparing the Fit of Item Response Theory and Factor Analysis Models

Linear factor analysis (FA) models can be reliably tested using test statistics based on residual covariances. We show that the same statistics can be used to reliably test the fit of item response theory (IRT) models for ordinal data (under some conditions). Hence, the fit of an FA model and of an IRT model to the same data set can now be compared. When applied to a binary data set, our experience suggests that IRT and FA models yield similar fits. However, when the data are polytomous ordinal, IRT models yield a better fit because they involve a higher number of parameters. But when fit is assessed using the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), similar fits are obtained again. We explain why. These test statistics have little power to distinguish between FA and IRT models; they are unable to detect that linear FA is misspecified when applied to ordinal data generated under an IRT model.     

广义偶合KdV孤子方程的达布变换及其精确解

与广义偶合KdV孤子方程相联系的谱问题的达布变换在这篇文章中被讨论.迭布变换是用来产生广义偶合KdV孤子方程的精确解.孤子方程的一些有趣的解被得到.     

Integration of Stochastic Differential Equations Using Structural Equation Modeling: A Method to Facilitate Model Fitting and Pedagogy

Stochastic differential equation (SDE) models are a promising method for modeling intraindividual change and variability. Applications of SDEs in the social sciences are relatively limited, as these models present conceptual and programming challenges. This article presents a novel method for conceptualizing SDEs. This method uses structural equation modeling (SEM) conventions to simplify SDE specification, the flexibility of SEM to expand the range of SDEs that can be fit, and SEM diagram conventions to facilitate the teaching of SDE concepts. This method is a variation of latent difference scores (McArdle, 2009; McArdle & Hamagami, 2001) and the oversampling approach (Singer, 2012), and approximates the advantages of analytic methods such as the exact discrete model (Oud & Jansen, 2000) while retaining the modeling fiexibility of methods such as latent differential equation modeling (Boker, Neale, & Rausch, 2004). A simulation and empirical example are presented to illustrate that this method can be implemented on current computing hardware, produces good approximations of analytic solutions, and can flexibly accommodate novel models.