A penalized likelihood method for multi-group structural equation modelling

In the past two decades, statistical modelling with sparsity has become an active research topic in the fields of statistics and machine learning. Recently, Huang, Chen and Weng (2017, Psychometrika, 82, 329) and Jacobucci, Grimm, and McArdle (2016, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 555) both proposed sparse estimation methods for structural equation modelling (SEM). These methods, however, are restricted to performing single-group analysis. The aim of the present work is to establish a penalized likelihood (PL) method for multi-group SEM. Our proposed method decomposes each group model parameter into a common reference component and a group-specific increment component. By penalizing the increment components, the heterogeneity of parameter values across the population can be explored since the null group-specific effects are expected to diminish. We developed an expectation-conditional maximization algorithm to optimize the PL criteria. A numerical experiment and a real data example are presented to demonstrate the potential utility of the proposed method.     

Premature conclusions about the signal-to-noise ratio in structural equation modeling research: A commentary on Yuan and Fang (2023)

In a recent article published in this journal, Yuan and Fang (British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 2023) suggest comparing structural equation modeling (SEM), also known as covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), estimated by normal-distribution-based maximum likelihood (NML), to regression analysis with (weighted) composites estimated by least squares (LS) in terms of their signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). They summarize their findings in the statement that “[c]ontrary to the common belief that CB-SEM is the preferred method for the analysis of observational data, this article shows that regression analysis via weighted composites yields parameter estimates with much smaller standard errors, and thus corresponds to greater values of the [SNR].” In our commentary, we show that Yuan and Fang have made several incorrect assumptions and claims. Consequently, we recommend that empirical researchers not base their methodological choice regarding CB-SEM and regression analysis with composites on the findings of Yuan and Fang as these findings are premature and require further research.