Assessing Model Similarity in Structural Equation Modeling

Two models can be nonequivalent, but fit very similarly across a wide range of data sets. These near-equivalent models, like equivalent models, should be considered rival explanations for results of a study if they represent plausible explanations for the phenomenon of interest. Prior to conducting a study, researchers should evaluate plausible models that are alternatives to those hypothesized to evaluate whether they are near-equivalent or equivalent and, in so doing, address the adequacy of the study’s methodology. To assess the extent to which alternative models for a study are empirically distinguishable, we propose 5 indexes that quantify the degree of similarity in fit between 2 models across a specified universe of data sets. These indexes compare either the maximum likelihood fit function values or the residual covariance matrices of models. Illustrations are provided to support interpretations of these similarity indexes.     

Revisiting the Model Size Effect in Structural Equation Modeling

Fitting a large structural equation modeling (SEM) model with moderate to small sample sizes results in an inflated Type I error rate for the likelihood ratio test statistic under the chi-square reference distribution, known as the model size effect. In this article, we show that the number of observed variables (p) and the number of free parameters (q) have unique effects on the Type I error rate of the likelihood ratio test statistic. In addition, the effects of p and q cannot be fully explained using degrees of freedom (df). We also evaluated the performance of 4 correctional methods for the model size effect, including Bartlett’s (1950), Swain’s (1975), and Yuan’s (2005) corrected statistics, and Yuan, Tian, and Yanagihara’s (2015) empirically corrected statistic. We found that Yuan et al.’s (2015) empirically corrected statistic generally yields the best performance in controlling the Type I error rate when fitting large SEM models.     

Regularized Structural Equation Modeling

A new method is proposed that extends the use of regularization in both lasso and ridge regression to structural equation models. The method is termed regularized structural equation modeling (RegSEM). RegSEM penalizes specific parameters in structural equation models, with the goal of creating easier to understand and simpler models. Although regularization has gained wide adoption in regression, very little has transferred to models with latent variables. By adding penalties to specific parameters in a structural equation model, researchers have a high level of flexibility in reducing model complexity, overcoming poor fitting models, and the creation of models that are more likely to generalize to new samples. The proposed method was evaluated through a simulation study, two illustrative examples involving a measurement model, and one empirical example involving the structural part of the model to demonstrate RegSEM’s utility.     

A Systematic Evaluation and Comparison Between Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling and Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling

In this study, we contrast two competing approaches, not previously compared, that balance the rigor of CFA/SEM with the flexibility to fit realistically complex data. Exploratory SEM (ESEM) is claimed to provide an optimal compromise between EFA and CFA/SEM. Alternatively, a family of three Bayesian SEMs (BSEMs) replace fixed-zero estimates with informative, small-variance priors for different subsets of parameters: cross-loadings (CL), residual covariances (RC), or CLs and RCs (CLRC). In Study 1, using three simulation studies, results showed that (1) BSEM-CL performed more closely to ESEM; (2) BSEM-CLRC did not provide more accurate model estimation compared with BSEM-CL; (3) BSEM-RC provided unstable estimation; and (4) different specifications of targeted values in ESEM and informative priors in BSEM have significant impacts on model estimation. The real data analysis (Study 2) showed that the differences in estimation between different models were largely consistent with those in Study1 but somewhat smaller.     

Reporting Monte Carlo Studies in Structural Equation Modeling

In structural equation modeling, Monte Carlo simulations have been used increasingly over the last two decades, as an inventory from the journal Structural Equation Modeling illustrates. Reaching out to a broad audience, this article provides guidelines for reporting Monte Carlo studies in that field. The framework of discourse is set by a number of steps to be taken in such research, matching outlines of experimental design by Paxton, Curran, Bollen, Kirby, and Chen (2001) Chen, F., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J. and Kirby, J. 2001. Improper solutions in structural equation modeling: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods & Research, 29: 468–508. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] and Skrondal (2000) Skrondal, A. 2000. Design and analysis of Monte Carlo experiments: Attacking the conventional wisdom. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35: 137–167. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]. Throughout the article, reference is made to exemplary publications and, occasionally, to imperfect reporting.     

Specification Searches in Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling: A Monte Carlo Investigation

Cluster sampling results in response variable variation both among respondents (i.e., within-cluster or Level 1) and among clusters (i.e., between-cluster or Level 2). Properly modeling within- and between-cluster variation could be of substantive interest in numerous settings, but applied researchers typically test only within-cluster (i.e., individual difference) theories. Specifying a between-cluster model in the absence of theory requires a specification search in multilevel structural equation modeling. This study examined a variety of within-cluster and between-cluster sample sizes, intraclass correlation coefficients, start models, parameter addition and deletion methods, and Type I error control techniques to identify which combination of start model, parameter addition or deletion method, and Type I error control technique best recovered the population of the between-cluster model. Results indicated that a “saturated” start model, univariate parameter deletion technique, and no Type I error control performed best, but recovered the population between-cluster model in less than 1 in 5 attempts at the largest sample sizes. The accuracy of specification search methods, suggestions for applied researchers, and future research directions 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.     

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 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.     

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 Second-Order Longitudinal Model for Binary Outcomes: Item Response Theory Versus Structural Equation Modeling

Measuring academic growth, or change in aptitude, relies on longitudinal data collected across multiple measurements. The National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88) is among the earliest, large-scale, educational surveys tracking students’ performance on cognitive batteries over 3 years. Notable features of the NELS:88 data set, and of almost all repeated measures educational assessments, are (a) the outcome variables are binary or at least categorical in nature; and (b) a set of different items is given at each measurement occasion with a few anchor items to fix the measurement scale. This study focuses on the challenges related to specifying and fitting a second-order longitudinal model for binary outcomes, within both the item response theory and structural equation modeling frameworks. The distinctions between and commonalities shared between these two frameworks are discussed. A real data analysis using the NELS:88 data set is presented for illustration purposes.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of Frequentist and Bayesian Regularization in Structural Equation Modeling

Research in regularization, as applied to structural equation modeling (SEM), remains in its infancy. Specifically, very little work has compared regularization approaches across both frequentist and Bayesian estimation. The purpose of this study was to address just that, demonstrating both similarity and distinction across estimation frameworks, while specifically highlighting more recent developments in Bayesian regularization. This is accomplished through the use of two empirical examples that demonstrate both ridge and lasso approaches across both frequentist and Bayesian estimation, along with detail regarding software implementation. We conclude with a discussion of future research, advocating for increased evaluation and synthesis across both Bayesian and frequentist frameworks.     

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.     

Comparing Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling and Existing Approaches for Multiple Regression with Latent Variables

Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) is an approach for analysis of latent variables using exploratory factor analysis to evaluate the measurement model. This study compared ESEM with two dominant approaches for multiple regression with latent variables, structural equation modeling (SEM) and manifest regression analysis (MRA). Main findings included: (1) ESEM in general provided the least biased estimation of the regression coefficients; SEM was more biased than MRA given large cross-factor loadings. (2) MRA produced the most precise estimation, followed by ESEM and then SEM. (3) SEM was the least powerful in the significance tests; statistical power was lower for ESEM than MRA with relatively small target-factor loadings, but higher for ESEM than MRA with relatively large target-factor loadings. (4) ESEM showed difficulties in convergence and occasionally created an inflated type I error rate under some conditions. ESEM is recommended when non-ignorable cross-factor loadings exist.     

Self-Conscious Emotions in Response to Perceived Failure: A Structural Equation Model

This study explored the occurrence of self-concsious emotions in response to perceived academic failure among 4th-grade students from the United States and Bulgaria, and the author investigated potential contributors to such negative emotional experiences. Results from structural equation modeling indicated that regardless of country, negative affectivity—as an individual predisposition to experience highly negative emotions—predicted self-conscious emotions toward academic failure. However, culture appeared to condition the relative importance of some family process variables in children's experiences of self-consious emotions. Bulgarian children's emotional experiences were amplified by the negative valence of their parents’ evaluative feedback in the aftermath of academic failure. In contrast, U.S. children's perceptions of failure appeared to be less influenced by their parents’ judgments. The findings of the study are interpreted in the light of cultural differences.     

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.     

教育促进人力资源生长的结构方程模型研究

厘清教育与人力资源的关系,特别是教育促进人力资源生长的机理,是提升人力资源生长水平的关键。影响人力资源生长的基本要素有自然环境、本土文化、经济形态、学校教育和个体自组织能力等。人力资源的生长状况存在标准化人力资源和本土化人力资源的类别分化,二者生长过程不同,影响因素的作用方式和程度亦不同。学校教育对标准化人力资源生长影响远胜于对本土化人力资源生长影响,而自组织对本土化人力资源生长影响远胜于对标准化人力资源生长影响。     

Testing Time-Invariance of Variable Specificity in Repeated Measure Designs Using Structural Equation Modeling

A structural equation modeling method for examining time-invariance of variable specificity in longitudinal studies with multiple measures is outlined, which is developed within a confirmatory factor-analytic framework. The approach represents a likelihood ratio test for the hypothesis of stability in the specificity part of the residual term associated with repeated administration of each measure. The procedure can be used in the search for parsimonious versions of multiwave multiple-indicator models, to test for variable specificity in them, and to examine assumptions underlying particular parameter estimation procedures in repeated measure designs. The outlined method is illustrated with empirical data.