Dealing with Multiple Solutions in Structural Vector Autoregressive Models

Multivariate Behavioral Research

Volumn 51, Issue 2-3, 2016, Pages 357-373

  Beltz, Adriene M ^a   Molenaar, Peter C M ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Equivalent solutions; group iterative multiple model estimation; plausible alternatives; structural equation models; vector autoregression

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; CHILD; HUMAN; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; TIME SERIES ANALYSIS; VALIDATION PROCESS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; MALE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RECREATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PLAY AND PLAYTHINGS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84964344940     PISSN: 00273171     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2016.1151333     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. H.Akaike, (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AC-19(6), 716–723. doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705
2. A.M.Beltz,, C.Beekman,, P.C.M.Molenaar,, & K.A.Buss, (2013). Mapping temporal dynamics in social interactions with unified structural equation modeling: A description and demonstration revealing time-dependent sex differences in play behavior. Applied Developmental Science, 17(3), 152–168. doi:10.1080/10888691.2013.805953
3. A.M.Beltz,, K.M.Gates,, A.S.Engels,, P.C.M.Molenaar,, C.Pulido,, R.Turrisi,, et al. (2013). Changes in alcohol-related brain networks across the first year of college: A prospective pilot study using fMRI connectivity mapping. Addictive Behaviors, 38(4), 2052–2059. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.12.023
4. A.M.Beltz,, & P.C.M.Molenaar, (2015). A posteriori model validation for the temporal order of directed functional connectivity maps. Frontiers in Neuroscience: Brain Imaging Methods, 9, article 304. doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00304
5. G.E.P.Box,, G.M.Jenkins,, & G.C.Reinsel, (2008). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
6. T.A.Brown, (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7. C.P.Chou,, & P.M.Bentler, (1990). Model modification in covariance structure modeling: A comparison among likelihood ratio, Lagrange Multiplier, and Wald tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 115–136. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_13
8. G.de Marco,, P.Vrignaud,, C.Destrieux,, D.de Marco,, S.Testelin,, B.Devauchelle,, et al. (2009). Principle of structural equation modeling for exploring functional interactivity within a putative network of interconnected brain areas. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 27(1), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2008.05.003
9. K.M.Gates,, P.C.Molenaar,, F.G.Hillary,, N.Ram,, & M.J.Rovine, (2010). Automatic search for fMRI connectivity mapping: an alternative to Granger causality testing using formal equivalences among SEM path modeling, VAR, and unified SEM. NeuroImage, 50(3), 1118–1125. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.117
10. K.M.Gates,, & P.C.M.Molenaar, (2012). Group search algorithm recovers effective connectivity maps for individuals in homogeneous and heterogeneous samples. NeuroImage, 63(1), 310–319. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.026
11. K.M.Gates,, P.C.M.Molenaar,, F.G.Hillary,, & S.Slobounov, (2011). Extended unified SEM approach for modeling event-related fMRI data. NeuroImage, 54(2), 1151–1158. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.051
12. M.S.Goodwin,, W.F.Velicer,, & S.S.Intille, (2008). Telemetric monitoring in the behavior sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 328–341. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.1.328
13. E.L.Hamaker,, C.V.Dolan,, & P.C.M.Molenaar, (2005). Statistical modeling of the individual: Rationale and application of multivariate stationary time series analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(2), 207–233. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4002_3
14. A.B.Henley,, C.L.Shook,, & M.Peterson, (2006). The presence of equivalent models in strategic management research using structural equation modeling: Assessing and addressing the problem. Organizational Research Methods, 9(4), 516–535. doi:10.1177/1094428106290195
15. F.G.Hillary,, J.D.Medaglia,, K.M.Gates,, P.C.Molenaar,, & D.C.Good, (2014). Examining network dynamics after traumatic brain injury using the extended unified SEM approach. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 8(3), 435–445. doi:10.1007/s11682-012-9205-0
16. L.T.Hu,, & P.M.Bentler, (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. doi:10.1037//1082-989x.3.4.424
17. K.G.Jöreskog,, & D.Sörbom, (1992). LISREL. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
18. D.Kaplan, (1989). Model modification in covariance structure analysis: Application of the expected parameter change statistic. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24(3), 285–305. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2403_2
19. J.Kim,, W.Zhu,, L.Chang,, P.M.Bentler,, & T.Ernst, (2007). Unified structural equation modeling approach for the analysis of multisubject, multivariate functional MRI data. Human Brain Mapping, 28(2), 85–93. doi:10.1002/hbm.20259
20. J.C.Loehlin, (1996). The Cholesky approach: A cautionary note. Behavior Genetics, 26(1), 65–69. doi:10.1007/BF02361160
21. H.Lütkepohl, (2005). New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
22. R.C.MacCallum,, & J.T.Austin, (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 201–226. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201
23. R.C.MacCallum,, M.Roznowski,, & L.B.Necowitz, (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure anlaysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490–504. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.11.3.490
24. R.C.MacCallum,, D.T.Wegener,, B.N.Uchino,, & L.R.Fabrigar, (1993). The problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 185–199. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.185
25. K.A.Markus, (2002). Statistical equivalence, semantic equivalence, eliminative induction, and the Raykov-Marcoulides proof of infinite equivalence. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 503–522. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0904_3
26. V.Martin,, S.Hurn,, & D.Harris, (2013). Econometric modelling with time series: Specification, estimation and testing. New York, NY: Cambridge Univerity Press.
27. P.C.M.Molenaar, (1985). A dynamic factor model for the analysis of multivariate time series. Psychometrika, 50(2), 181–202. doi:10.1007/bf02294246
28. P.C.M.Molenaar, (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2(4), 201–218. doi:10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1
29. P.C.M.Molenaar,, & L.L.Lo, (2016). Alternative forms of Granger causality, heterogeneity and non-stationarity. In A.von Eye & W.Wiedermann (Eds.), Statistics and causality. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
30. P.C.M.Molenaar,, & J.R.Nesselroade, (1998). A comparison of pseudo-maximum likelihood and asymptotically distribution-free dynamic factor analysis parameter estimation in fitting covariance-structure models to block-Toeplitz matrices representing single-subject multivariate time-series. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(3), 313–342. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3303_1
31. J.R.Nesselroade,, & N.Ram, (2004). Studying intraindividual variability: What we have learned that will help us understand lives in context. Research in Human Development, 1(1&2), 9–29. doi:10.1080/15427609.2004.9683328
32. R.A.Poldrack,, & A.D.Wagner, (2004). What can neuroimaging tell us about the mind? Insights from prefrontal cortex. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(5), 177–181. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00302.x
33. J.D.Ramsey,, S.J.Hanson,, & C.Glymour, (2011). Multi-subject search correctly identifies causal connections and most causal directions in the DCM models of the Smith et al. simulation study. NeuroImage, 58(3), 838–848. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.068
34. T.Raykov,, & G.A.Marcoulides, (2001). Can there be infinitely many models equivalent to a given covariance structure model?. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(1), 142–149. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0801_8
35. S.M.Smith,, K.L.Miller,, G.Salimi-Khorshidi,, M.Webster,, C.F.Beckmann,, T.E.Nichols,, et al. (2011). Network modelling methods for FMRI. NeuroImage, 54(2), 875–891. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.063
36. D.Sörbom, (1989). Model modification. Psychometrika, 54(3), 371–384. doi:10.1007/bf02294623
37. P.A.Valdés-Sosa,, J.M.Sánchez-Bornot,, A.Lage-Castellanos,, M.Vega-Hernández,, J.Bosch-Bayard,, L.Melie-García,, et al. (2005). Estimating brain functional connectivity with sparse multivariate autoregression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 360(1457), 969–981. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1654
38. A.G.C.Wright,, A.M.Beltz,, K.M.Gates,, P.C.M.Molenaar,, & L.J.Simms, (2015). Examining the dynamic structure of daily internalizing and externalizing behavior at multiple levels of anlaysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, article 1914. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01914
39. Z.Zhang,, E.L.Hamaker,, & J.R.Nesselroade, (2008). Comparisons of four methods for estimating a dynamic factor model. Structural Equation Modeling, 15(3), 377–402. doi:10.1080/10705510802154281
40. J.C.Zhuang,, S.LaConte,, S.Peltier,, K.Zhang,, & X.P.Hu, (2005). Connectivity exploration with structural equation modeling: An fMRI study of bimanual motor coordination. NeuroImage, 25(2), 462–470. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.11.007