(Why) Should we use SEM? Pros and cons of structural equation modeling

MPR-online

Volumn 8, Issue , 2003, Pages 1-22

  Nachtigall, Christof ^a   Ulf Kroehne, Friedrich Funke ^a   Steyer, Rolf ^a  

^a FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

Author keywords

AMOS; EQS; Internet survey; LISREL; SEM software; Structural equation modeling (SEM)

Indexed keywords

EID: 4043130308     PISSN: 14328534     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. American Psychological Association(2001). Publication Manual of the AmericanPsychological Association. (5th ed.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (2001). Amos 4.0 User's Guide. Chicago: SmallWaters.
3. th ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
5. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
6. Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
7. Bollen, K. A., & Paxton, P. (1998). Interactions of latent variables in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 5(3), 267-293.
8. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1993). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 111-135). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
9. Boomsma, A. (2000). Reporting Analyses of Covariance Structures. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(3), 461-484.
10. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155-174.
11. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1985). The bootstrap method for assessing statistical accuracy. Behaviormetrika, 17(1), 1-35.
12. Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65, 241-261.
13. Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., Nussbeck, F. W., & Trierweiler, L. I. (2003). Separating trait effects from trait-specific method effects in multitrait-multimethod models: A multiple-indicator CT-C(M-1) Model. Psychological Methods, 8(1), 38-60.
14. Enders, C. K. (2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 128-141.
15. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430-457.
16. Holland, P. W. Â., & Rubin, D. B. (1988). Causal inference in retrospective studies. Evaluation Review, 23, 203-231.
17. Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18. Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19. Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.) (1999). Statistical strategies for small sample research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20. Jöreskog, K. G. (1967). Some contributions to maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 443-482.
21. Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183-202.
22. Jöreskog, K. G. (1973). Analysis of covariance structure. In P. R. Krishnaiah (Ed.), Multivariate analysis III. New York: Academic Press, 263-285.
23. Jöreskog, K. G. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 43 (4), 443-477.
24. Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., du Toit, S.-H. C., & du Toit, M. (1999). LISREL 8: New Statistical Features. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
25. Jöreskog, K. G. (2001). Analysis of Ordinal Variables 2. http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/ord2.pdf
26. Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling. Foundations and Extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27. Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(4), 457-474.
28. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
29. Kroehne, U., Wolf, A., Funke, F., & Nachtigall, C. (2003). A field guide to fit indices in structural equation modeling - Reading and understanding the formulas. Metheval report 4(5). http://www.uni-jena.de/svw/metheval/report. php
30. Marcoulides, G. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (1996). Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181-220.
32. Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33. Morrison, D.F (1976). Multivariate statistical methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
34. Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171-189.
35. Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 19-30.
36. Muthén, B. O. (1993). Goodness of fit with categorical and other nonnormal variables. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (Eds.) Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
37. Muthén, B. (2001 a). Latent variable mixture modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New Developments and Techniques in Structural Equation Modeling (pp. 1-33). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Muthén, B. (2001 b). Second-generation structural equation modeling with a combination of categorical and continuous latent variables: New opportunities for latent class/latent growth modeling. In L. M. Collins. & A. Sayer (Eds.), New Methods for the Analysis of Change (pp. 291-322).
39. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599-620.
40. Nachtigall, C., Steyer, R., & Wüthrich-Martone, O. (2001). Causal effects in empirical research. In M. May & U. Ostermeier (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on causality. Bern studies in the history and philosophy of science (pp. 81-100). Norderstedt, Germany: Libri Books.
41. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: models, reasoning and inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2001). Can there be infinitely many models equivalent to a given covariance structure model? Structural Equation Modeling, 8(1), 142-149.
44. Raykov, T., & Penev, S. (2001). The problem of equivalent structural equation models: An individual residual perspective. In G. A. Marcoulides & R.E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 297-321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45. Raykov, T., & Penev, S. (2002). Exploring structural equation model misspecifications via latent individual residuals. In G. A. Marcoulides & I. Moustaki (Eds.), Latent variable and latent structure models (pp. 121-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Reilly, T. (1995). A necessary and sufficient condition for identification of confirmatory factor analysis models of complexity one. Sociological Methods & Research, 23(4), 421-441.
47. Rigdon, E. E. (1995). A necessary and sufficient identification rule for structural models estimated in practice. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(3), 359-383.
48. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika,70, 41-55.
49. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688-701.
50. Rubin, D. B. (1986). Which ifs have causal answers. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 961-962.
51. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (1993). Causation, prediction, and search. New York: Springer.
52. Stelzl, I. (1983). Zur Uneindeutigkeit von LISREL-Lösungen: Überlegungen und Beispiele. [On the ambiguity of LISREL solutions: Considerations and examples]. Psychologische Beiträge, 25(3-4), 315-335.
53. Steiger, J. H. (2001). Driving fast in reverse. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(453), 331-338.
54. Steyer, R. (1988). Experiment, Regression und Kausalität: Die logische Struktur kausaler Regressionsmodelle [Experiment, regression and causality: The logical structure of causal regression models]. Unveröff. Habil., Universität Trier. http://www.unijena.de/svw/metheval/report.php
55. Steyer, R. (1992). Theorie kausaler Regressionsmodelle [Theory of causal regression models]. Stuttgart, Germany: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
56. Steyer, R. (2003). Wahrscheinlichkeit und Regression. [Probability and regression]. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
57. Steyer, R., Ferring, D., & Schmitt, M. J. (1992). States and traits in psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 79-98.
58. Steyer, R., Gabler, S., von Davier, A., Nachtigall, C., & Buhl, T. (2000 a). Causal regression models I: individual and average causal effects. Methods of Psychological Research-Online, 5(2), 39-71. http://www.mpr-online.de
59. Steyer, R., Gabler, S., von Davier, A., & Nachtigall, C. (2000 b). Causal regression models II: Unconfoundedness and causal unbiasedness. Methods of Psychological Research-Online, 5(3), 55-86. http://www.mpr-online.de
60. Steyer, R., Nachtigall, C., Wüthrich-Martone, O., & Kraus, K. (2002). Causal regression models III: Covariates, conditional and unconditional average causal effects. Methods of Psychological Research-Online. 7(1), 41-68, http://www.mpr-online.de
61. von Davier, A. A. (2001). Tests of unconfoundedness in regression models with normally distributed variables. Aachen, Germany: Shaker.
62. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
63. Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and Causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557-585.
64. Wright, S. (1934). The method of path coefficients. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 5, 161-215.
65. Yung, Y. F., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Bootstrap-corrected ADF test statistics in covariance structure analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47(1), 63-84.