Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads

Structural equation modeling (SEM) can be adapted in a relatively straightforward fashion to analyze data from interchangeable dyads (i.e., dyads in which the 2 members cannot be differentiated). The authors describe a general strategy for SEM model estimation, comparison, and fit assessment that can be used with either dyad-level or pairwise (double-entered) dyadic data. They present applications illustrating this approach with the actor-partner interdependence model, confirmatory factor analysis, and latent growth curve analysis.     

Structural equation modeling of approval voting data

The method of approval voting is a commonly used voting procedure in which each judge selects a subset of the alternatives. By postulating that the random utilities associated with the choice options in approval voting elections follow a multivariate normal distribution under the Thurstonian framework, Regenwetter, Ho, and Tsetlin (2007) attempted to integrate the normative theories and individual variabilities in modeling social behavior. However, their approach is limited to only three alternatives, due to computational intractability as the number of alternatives increases. In this article, we reparameterize extensions of their models under the structural equation modeling framework and propose the use of limited information methods for estimating model parameters. As a result, we are able to extend their previous approach to the analysis of approval voting data with any number of alternatives. Two applications are presented to illustrate the usefulness of such an approach.     

Structural equation modeling with heavy tailed distributions

Data in social and behavioral sciences typically possess heavy tails. Structural equation modeling is commonly used in analyzing interrelations among variables of such data. Classical methods for structural equation modeling fit a proposed model to the sample covariance matrix, which can lead to very inefficient parameter estimates. By fitting a structural model to a robust covariance matrix for data with heavy tails, one generally gets more efficient parameter estimates. Because many robust procedures are available, we propose using the empirical efficiency of a set of invariant parameter estimates in identifying an optimal robust procedure. Within the class of elliptical distributions, analytical results show that the robust procedure leading to the most efficient parameter estimates also yields a most powerful test statistic. Examples illustrate the merit of the proposed procedure. The relevance of this procedure to data analysis in a broader context is noted. The authors thank the editor, an associate editor and four referees for their constructive comments, which led to an improved version of the paper.     

Structural equation modeling of paired-comparison and ranking data

L. L. Thurstone's (1927) model provides a powerful framework for modeling individual differences in choice behavior. An overview of Thurstonian models for comparative data is provided, including the classical Case V and Case III models as well as more general choice models with unrestricted and factor-analytic covariance structures. A flow chart summarizes the model selection process. The authors show how to embed these models within a more familiar structural equation modeling (SEM) framework. The different special cases of Thurstone's model can be estimated with a popular SEM statistical package, including factor analysis models for paired comparisons and rankings. Only minor modifications are needed to accommodate both types of data. As a result, complex models for comparative judgments can be both estimated and tested efficiently.     

Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving forward

This tutorial begins with an overview of structural equation modeling (SEM) that includes the purpose and goals of the statistical analysis as well as terminology unique to this technique. I will focus on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a special type of SEM. After a general introduction, CFA is differentiated from exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the advantages of CFA techniques are discussed. Following a brief overview, the process of modeling will be discussed and illustrated with an example using data from a HIV risk behavior evaluation of homeless adults (Stein & Nyamathi, 2000). Techniques for analysis of nonnormally distributed data as well as strategies for model modification are shown. The empirical example examines the structure of drug and alcohol use problem scales. Although these scales are not specific personality constructs, the concepts illustrated in this article directly correspond to those found when analyzing personality scales and inventories. Computer program syntax and output for the empirical example from a popular SEM program (EQS 6.1; Bentler, 2001) are included.     

Structural equation modeling with small sample sizes using two-stage ridge least-squares estimation

In covariance structure analysis, two-stage least-squares (2SLS) estimation has been recommended for use over maximum likelihood estimation when model misspecification is suspected. However, 2SLS often fails to provide stable and accurate solutions, particularly for structural equation models with small samples. To address this issue, a regularized extension of 2SLS is proposed that integrates a ridge type of regularization into 2SLS, thereby enabling the method to effectively handle the small-sample-size problem. Results are then reported of a Monte Carlo study conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed method, as compared to its nonregularized counterpart. Finally, an application is presented that demonstrates the empirical usefulness of the proposed method.     

Structural equation modeling of multitrait-multimethod data: different models for different types of methods

The question as to which structural equation model should be selected when multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data are analyzed is of interest to many researchers. In the past, attempts to find a well-fitting model have often been data-driven and highly arbitrary. In the present article, the authors argue that the measurement design (type of methods used) should guide the choice of the statistical model to analyze the data. In this respect, the authors distinguish between (a) interchangeable methods, (b) structurally different methods, and (c) the combination of both kinds of methods. The authors present an appropriate model for each type of method. All models allow separating measurement error from trait influences and trait-specific method effects. With respect to interchangeable methods, a multilevel confirmatory factor model is presented. For structurally different methods, the correlated trait-correlated (method-1) model is recommended. Finally, the authors demonstrate how to appropriately analyze data from MTMM designs that simultaneously use interchangeable and structurally different methods. All models are applied to empirical data to illustrate their proper use. Some implications and guidelines for modeling MTMM data are discussed.     

Examining social-cognitive determinants of intention and physical activity among black and white adolescent girls using structural equation modeling.

Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate components within the theories of reasoned action (TRA), planned behavior (TPB), and self-efficacy (SET) for understanding moderate and vigorous physical activity among 1,797 Black and White adolescent girls. Modest to strong support was provided for components of TPB and SET; weak support was provided for components of TRA. Perceived behavioral control was related to vigorous physical activity. Self-efficacy was related to moderate and vigorous physical activity, and it accounted for the effect of intention on physical activity. The observed relationships were similar between Black and White girls. Self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control are independent influences on physical activity among Black and White adolescent girls and warrant study as potential mediators in physical activity interventions.     

Generalized multilevel structural equation modeling

A unifying framework for generalized multilevel structural equation modeling is introduced. The models in the framework, called generalized linear latent and mixed models (GLLAMM), combine features of generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) and structural equation models (SEM) and consist of a response model and a structural model for the latent variables. The response model generalizes GLMMs to incorporate factor structures in addition to random intercepts and coefficients. As in GLMMs, the data can have an arbitrary number of levels and can be highly unbalanced with different numbers of lower-level units in the higher-level units and missing data. A wide range of response processes can be modeled including ordered and unordered categorical responses, counts, and responses of mixed types. The structural model is similar to the structural part of a SEM except that it may include latent and observed variables varying at different levels. For example, unit-level latent variables (factors or random coefficients) can be regressed on cluster-level latent variables. Special cases of this framework are explored and data from the British Social Attitudes Survey are used for illustration. Maximum likelihood estimation and empirical Bayes latent score prediction within the GLLAMM framework can be performed using adaptive quadrature in gllamm, a freely available program running in Stata.gllamm can be downloaded from http://www.gllamm.org. The paper was written while Sophia Rabe-Hesketh was employed at and Anders Skrondal was visiting the Department of Biostatistics and Computing, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London.     

Structural equation modelling of human judgement

Structural equation modelling (SEM) is outlined and compared with two non-linear alternatives, artificial neural networks and “fast and frugal” models. One particular non-linear decision-making situation is discussed, that exemplified by a lexicographic semi-order. We illustrate the use of SEM on a dataset derived from 539 volunteers' responses to questions about food-related risks. Our conclusion is that SEM is a useful member of the armoury of techniques available to the student of human judgement: it subsumes several multivariate statistical techniques and permits their flexible combination, and it provides robust goodness-of-fit statistics and is available in (generally) easy-to-use computer packages. Although the number of tasks for which SEM provides a persuasive psychological model is small, it is very useful in identifying the important variables and their inter-relations that contribute to task performance, and thus can constitute a valuable intermediate staging point between raw data and a fully fledged psychological theory.     

Accuracy in parameter estimation for targeted effects in structural equation modeling: sample size planning for narrow confidence intervals

In addition to evaluating a structural equation model (SEM) as a whole, often the model parameters are of interest and confidence intervals for those parameters are formed. Given a model with a good overall fit, it is entirely possible for the targeted effects of interest to have very wide confidence intervals, thus giving little information about the magnitude of the population targeted effects. With the goal of obtaining sufficiently narrow confidence intervals for the model parameters of interest, sample size planning methods for SEM are developed from the accuracy in parameter estimation approach. One method plans for the sample size so that the expected confidence interval width is sufficiently narrow. An extended procedure ensures that the obtained confidence interval will be no wider than desired, with some specified degree of assurance. A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted that verified the effectiveness of the procedures in realistic situations. The methods developed have been implemented in the MBESS package in R so that they can be easily applied by researchers.     

Structural equation models and personality research

This article is a nontechnical introduction to the use of structural equation models in personality research Although such models can be fruitfully used to address a variety of important theoretical issues, the substantive focus in this article is on the use of such models for elucidating the construct validity of personality measures We include numerous more specific topics under our treatment of construct validity First of all, we show how structural equation models can be applied to the issues of convergent and discriminant validity Do our variables measure the constructs we want them to measure and not other constructs that we would prefer not to measure? Second, we show the utility of structural equation models for predictive validity Do our variables reliably predict other constructs with which they are theoretically linked? Finally, we examine the stability of personality constructs through structural equation models Through-out, our emphasis is on the particular advantages that structural equation models bring to these analytic tasks Ultimately, such models must be used in the service of theory, and when used appropriately, they can help us to refine both our measures and our theories of individual differences     

Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling

As with other statistical methods, missing data often create major problems for the estimation of structural equation models (SEMs). Conventional methods such as listwise or pairwise deletion generally do a poor job of using all the available information. However, structural equation modelers are fortunate that many programs for estimating SEMs now have maximum likelihood methods for handling missing data in an optimal fashion. In addition to maximum likelihood, this article also discusses multiple imputation. This method has statistical properties that are almost as good as those for maximum likelihood and can be applied to a much wider array of models and estimation methods.     

结构方程模型的应用及分析策略

差不多所有心理、教育、社会等概念,均难以直接准确测量,结构方程（SEM,Struc－tulalEquationModelling）提供一个处理测量误差的方法,采用多个指标去反映潜在变量,也令估计整个模型因子间关系,较传统回归方法更为准确合理。本文主要用一系列有关学习动机的虚拟例子,指出每个问题的主要分析策略,以展示SEM在教育及心理学可以应用的研究范畴。文内探讨的方法包括：验证性因素、高阶因子、路径及因果分析、多时段（multiwave）设计、单形模型（SimpleModel）、及多组比较等。     

Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: a two-stage approach

To synthesize studies that use structural equation modeling (SEM), researchers usually use Pearson correlations (univariate r), Fisher z scores (univariate z), or generalized least squares (GLS) to combine the correlation matrices. The pooled correlation matrix is then analyzed by the use of SEM. Questionable inferences may occur for these ad hoc procedures. A 2-stage structural equation modeling (TSSEM) method is proposed to incorporate meta-analytic techniques and SEM into a unified framework. Simulation results reveal that the univariate-r, univariate-z, and TSSEM methods perform well in testing the homogeneity of correlation matrices and estimating the pooled correlation matrix. When fitting SEM, only TSSEM works well. The GLS method performed poorly in small to medium samples.     

贝叶斯结构方程模型及其研究现状

在心理学研究中结构方程模型(Structural Equation Modeling, SEM)被广泛用于检验潜变量间的因果效应, 其估计方法有频率学方法(如, 极大似然估计)和贝叶斯方法两类。近年来由于贝叶斯统计的流行及其在结构方程建模中易于处理小样本、缺失数据及复杂模型等方面的优势, 贝叶斯结构方程模型发展迅速, 但其在国内心理学领域的应用不足。主要介绍了贝叶斯结构方程模型的方法基础和优良特性, 及几类常用的贝叶斯结构方程模型及其应用现状, 旨在为应用研究者介绍新的研究工具。     

Constrained versus unconstrained estimation in structural equation modeling

Recently, R. D. Stoel, F. G. Garre, C. Dolan, and G. van den Wittenboer (2006) reviewed approaches for obtaining reference mixture distributions for difference tests when a parameter is on the boundary. The authors of the present study argue that this methodology is incomplete without a discussion of when the mixtures are needed and show that they only become relevant when constrained difference tests are conducted. Because constrained difference tests can hide important model misspecification, a reliable way to assess global model fit under constrained estimation would be needed. Examination of the options for assessing model fit under constrained estimation reveals that no perfect solutions exist, although the conditional approach of releasing a degree of freedom for each active constraint appears to be the most methodologically sound one. The authors discuss pros and cons of constrained and unconstrained estimation and their implementation in 5 popular structural equation modeling packages and argue that unconstrained estimation is a simpler method that is also more informative about sources of misfit. In practice, researchers will have trouble conducting constrained difference tests appropriately, as this requires a commitment to ignore Heywood cases. Consequently, mixture distributions for difference tests are rarely appropriate.