Analyzing Different Types of Moderated Method Effects in Confirmatory Factor Models for Structurally Different Methods

Structural Equation Modeling

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 179-200

  Koch, Tobias ^a   Kelava, Augustin ^b   Eid, Michael ^c  

^a LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^c FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

CTC(M 1) model; latent difference model; latent moderation analysis; structurally different methods

Indexed keywords

MATHEMATICAL MODELS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

CORRELATED METHODS; DIFFERENCE MODELS; FINE-GRAINED ANALYSIS; INTERACTION EFFECT; LATENT MODERATED STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS; LATENT MODERATION ANALYSIS; MEASUREMENT DESIGNS; STRUCTURALLY DIFFERENT METHODS;

NONLINEAR ANALYSIS;

EID: 85032012308     PISSN: 10705511     EISSN: 15328007     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2017.1373595     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G., (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Brandt, H., Umbach, N., & Kelava, A., (2015). The standardization of linear and nonlinear effects in direct and indirect applications of structural equation mixture models for normal and nonnormal data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01813
3. Cronbach, L., (1995). Giving method variance its due. In P. E., Shrout & S. T., Fiske (Eds.), Personality research, methods, and theory: A festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske (pp. 145–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Dumenci, L., (2000). Multitrait–multimethod analysis. In S. D., Brown & H. E., Tinsley (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematerial modeling (pp. 583–611). San Diego, CA: Academic.
5. Eid, M., (2000). A multitrait–multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65, 241–261. doi:10.1007/BF02294377
6. Eid, M., Geiser, C., & Koch, T., (2016). Measuring method effects: From traditional to design-oriented approaches. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 275–280. doi:10.1177/0963721416649624
7. Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., & Nussbeck, F., (2006). Structural equation models for multitrait–multimethod data. In M., Eid & E., Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 289–299). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8. 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, 38–60. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.1.38
9. Eid, M., Nussbeck, F. W., Geiser, C., Cole, D. A., Gollwitzer, M., & Lischetzke, T., (2008). Structural equation modeling of multitrait–multimethod data: Different models for different types of methods. Psychological Methods, 13, 230–253. doi:10.1037/a0013219
10. Funder, D. C., (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.652
11. Geiser, C., Eid, M., & Nussbeck, F. W., (2008). On the meaning of the latent variables in the CT-C(M-1) model: A comment on Maydeu-Olivares and Coffman (2006). Psychological Methods, 13(1), 49–57. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.13.1.49
12. Geiser, C., Eid, M., West, S. G., Lischetzke, T., & Nussbeck, F. W., (2012). A comparison of method effects in two confirmatory factor models for structurally different methods. Structural Equation Modeling, 19, 409–436. doi:10.1080/10705511.2012.687658
13. Geiser, C., Koch, T., & Eid, M., (2014). Data-generating mechanisms versus constructively defined latent variables in multitrait–multimethod analysis: A comment on Castro-Schilo, Widaman, and Grimm (2013). Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 509–523. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.919816
14. Horst, P., (1941). The role of predictor variables which are independent of the criterion. Social Science Research Council Bulletin, 48, 431–436.
15. Jedidi, K., Jagpal, H. S., & DeSarbo, W. S., (1997). Stemm: A general finite mixture structural equation model. Journal of Classification, 14, 23–50. doi:10.1007/s003579900002
16. Kelava, A., & Brandt, H., (2009). Estimation of nonlinear latent structural equation models using the extended unconstrained approach. Review of Psychology, 16, 123–132. Retrieved from http://hrcak.srce.hr/70644
17. Kelava, A., & Brandt, H., (2014). A general nonlinear multilevel structural equation mixture model. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 748. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00748
18. Kelava, A., & Nagengast, B., (2012). A Bayesian model for the estimation of latent interaction and quadratic effects when latent variables are non-normally distributed. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 717–742. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715560
19. Kelava, A., Nagengast, B., & Brandt, H., (2014). A nonlinear structural equation mixture modeling approach for nonnormally distributed latent predictor variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 468–481. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.915379
20. Kenny, D. A., (1995). The multitrait–multimethod matrix: Design, analysis, and conceptual issues. In P., Shrout & S. T., Fiske (Eds.), Personality research, methods, and theory: A festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske (pp. 111–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M., (1984). Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of latent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 201. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.201
22. Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H., (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the lms method. Psychometrika, 65, 457–474. doi:10.1007/BF02296338
23. Koch, T., & Eid, M., (2016). Statistische methoden der komparativen internationalen migrationsforschung [Statistical methods of comparative international migration research]. In D., Maehler & H. U., Brinkmann (Eds.), Methoden der migrationsforschung (pp. 225–259). Berlin, Germany: Springer VS.
24. Koch, T., Eid, M., & Lochner, K., (in press). Multitrait–multimethod-analysis: The psychometric foundation of CFA–MTMM models. In P. 1275 Irwing, T. Booth, & D. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychometrictesting. London, UK: Wiley.
25. Koch, T., Holtmann, J., Bohn, J., & Eid, M., (2017, July 24). Explaining general and specific factors in longitudinal, multimethod, and bifactor Models: Some Caveats and Recommendations. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/met0000146
26. Lee, S.-Y., Song, X.-Y., & Cai, J.-H., (2010). A Bayesian approach for nonlinear structural equation models with dichotomous variables using logit and probit links. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 280–302. doi:10.1080/10705511003659425
27. Lee, S.-Y., Song, X.-Y., & Tang, N.-S., (2007). Bayesian methods for analyzing structural equation models with covariates, interaction, and quadratic latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 404–434. doi:10.1080/10705510701301511
28. Lischetzke, T., Eid, M., & Nussbeck, F. W., (2002). Unterschiedliche Definitionen von Methodeneffekten in MTMM Modellen und ihre Implikationen für die Analyse der Validität [Different definitions of method effects in mtmm models and their implications for validity analysis]. Paper presented at the 43rd meeting of the German Psychological Association, Berlin, Germany.
29. Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Widaman, K. F., (2006). On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms: Implications for modeling interactions among latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 497–519. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1304_1
30. Luhmann, M., Bohn, J., Holtmann, J., Koch, T., & Eid, M., (2016). I’m lonely, can’t you tell? Convergent validity of self-and informant ratings of loneliness. Journal of Research in Personality, 61, 50–60. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.002
31. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S., (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155. doi:10.1023/A:1006824100041
32. Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D., (2016). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 87–96. doi:10.1177/0165025414552301
33. Moulder, B. C., & Algina, J., (2002). Comparison of methods for estimating and testing latent variable interactions. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 1–19. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0901/1
34. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O., (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
35. Nussbeck, F. W., & Eid, M., (2015). Multimethod latent class analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1332. Retrieved from http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01332/full
36. Oberski, D. L., Hagenaars, J., & Saris, W. E., (2015). The latent class multitrait–multimethod model. Psychological Methods, 20, 422–443. doi:10.1037/a0039783
37. Pohl, S., & Steyer, R., (2010). Modeling common traits and method effects in multitrait–multimethod analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 45–72. doi:10.1080/00273170903504729
38. Pohl, S., Steyer, R., & Kraus, K., (2008). Modelling method effects as individual causal effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 171(1), 41–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00517.x
39. Praetorius, A.-K., Koch, T., Scheunpflug, A., Zeinz, H., & Dresel, M., (2017). Identifying determinants of teachers’ judgment (In)accuracy regarding students’ motivations using a bayesian cross-classified multi-level model. Learning and Instruction, 52, 148–160. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.06.003
40. Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., Klein, M. C., Beierlein, C., & Kovaleva, A., (2013). Eine kurze Skala zur Messung der fünf Dimensionen der Persönlichkeit: 10 Item Big Five Inventory (BFI–10) [A short scale for the assessment of the five personality dimensions: 10 Item Big Five Inventory]. Methoden, Daten, Analysen (Mda), 7, 233–249. doi:10.12758/mda.2013.013
41. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V., (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354. doi:10.1037/a0029315
42. Umbach, N., Naumann, K., Brandt, H., & Kelava, A., (2017). Fitting nonlinear structural equation models in R with package nlsem. Journal of Statistical Software, Articles, 77(7), 1–20. Retrieved from https://www.jstatsoft.org/v077/i07
43. Wall, M. M., & Amemiya, Y., (2003). A method of moments technique for fitting interaction effects in structural equation models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 56(1), 47–63. doi:10.1348/000711003321645331