A penalized likelihood method for multi-group structural equation modelling

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

Volumn 71, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 499-522

  Huang, Po Hsien ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

factor analysis; measurement invariance; penalized likelihood; structural equation modelling

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOMETRY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; PSYCHOMETRICS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 85042788037     PISSN: 00071102     EISSN: 20448317     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bmsp.12130     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactionson Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
2. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919210
3. Bühlmann, P., & van de Geer, S. (2011). Statistics for high-dimensional data. Berlin: Springer.
4. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
5. Chaudhuri, S., Drton, M., & Richardson, T. S. (2007). Estimation of a covariance matrix with zeros. Biometrika, 94(1), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asm007
6. Chen, Y., Liu, J., Xu, G., & Ying, Z. (2015). Statistical analysis of Q-matrix based diagnostic classification models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(510), 850–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2014.934827
7. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/2984875
8. Fan, J., & Li, R. (2001). Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(456), 1348–1360. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214501753382273
9. Fan, J., & Lv, J. (2010). A selective overview of variable selection in high dimensional feature space (invited review article). Statistica Sinica, 20(1), 101–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11425-015-5062-9
10. French, B. F., & Finch, W. H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(3), 378–402. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1303_3
11. Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2010). Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software, 33(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v033.i01
12. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Wainwright, M. (2015). Statistical learning with sparsity: The lasso and generalizations. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
13. Haughton, D. M., Oud, J. H., & Jansen, R. A. (1997). Information and other criteria in structural equation model selection. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation, 26(4), 1477–1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610919708813451
14. Hirose, K., & Yamamoto, M. (2014). Estimation of an oblique structure via penalized likelihood factor analysis. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 79, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2014.05.011
15. Hirose, K., & Yamamoto, M. (2015). Sparse estimation via nonconcave penalized likelihood in factor analysis model. Statistics and Computing, 25(5), 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-014-9458-0
16. Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1939). A study in factor analysis: The stability of a bifactor solution (Supplementary Educational Monograph No. 48). Chicago, IL, USA:University of Chicago.
17. Huang, P.-H. (2017). Asymptotics of AIC, BIC, and RMSEA for model selection in structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 82(2), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-017-9572-y
18. Huang, P.-H., Chen, H., & Weng, L.-J. (2017). A penalized likelihood method for structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 82(2), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-017-9566-9
19. Jacobucci, R., Grimm, K. J., & McArdle, J. J. (2016). Regularized structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(4), 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1154793
20. Jennrich, R. I. (2006). Rotation to simple loadings using component loss functions: The oblique case. Psychometrika, 71(1), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-1136-B Johnson, E. C., Meade, A. W., %26 DuVernet, A. M. (2009). The role of referent indicators in tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16 (4), 642-657.https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903206014
21. Johnson, E. C., Meade, A. W., & DuVernet, A. M. (2009). The role of referent indicators in tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 642–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903206014
22. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291366
23. Jung, E., & Yoon, M. (2016). Comparisons of three empirical methods for partial factorial invariance: Forward, backward, and factor-ratio tests. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(4), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2015.1138092
24. Jung, E., & Yoon, M. (2017). Two-step approach to partial factorial invariance: Selecting a reference variable and identifying the source of noninvariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1251845
25. Kaplan, D. (1989). Power of the likelihood ratio test in multiple group confirmatory factor analysis under partial measurement invariance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(3), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448904900308
26. Katsikatsou, M., Moustaki, I., Yang-Wallentin, F., & JÃureskog, K. G. (2012). Pairwise likelihood estimation for factor analysis models with ordinal data. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 56(12), 4243–4258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2012.04.010
27. Knight, K., & Fu, W. (2000). Asymptotics for lasso-type estimators. Annals of Statistics, 28(5), 1356–1378. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
28. Lee, J. D., Sun, D. L., Sun, Y., & Taylor, J. E. (2016). Exact post-selection inference, with application to the lasso. Annals of Statistics, 44(3), 907–927. https://doi.org/10.1214/15-AOS1371
29. Leeb, H., & Pötscher, B. M. (2006). Can one estimate the conditional distribution of post-model-selection estimators? Annals of Statistics, 34(5), 2554–2591. https://doi.org/10.1214/009053606000000821
30. Magis, D., Tuerlinckx, F., & De Boeck, P. (2015). Detection of differential item functioning using the lasso approach. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40(2), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614559747
31. McArdle, J. J., & McDonald, R. P. (1984). Some algebraic properties of the reticular action model for moment structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37(2), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1984.tb00802.x
32. Meade, A. W., & Bauer, D. J. (2007). Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 611–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575461
33. Meng, X.-L., & Rubin, D. B. (1993). Maximum likelihood estimation via the ECM algorithm: A general framework. Biometrika, 80(2), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/80.2.267
34. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf02294825
35. Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge.
36. Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O.-M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods, 9(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.93
37. Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294210
38. Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026802
39. Pötscher, B. M. (1991). Effects of model selection on inference. Econometric Theory, 7(2), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466600004382
40. R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
41. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
42. Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structure between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27(2), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1974.tb00543.x
43. Steiger, J. H. (1998). A note on multiple sample extensions of the RMSEA fit index. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519809540115
44. Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 58(1), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2011.00771.x
45. Tibshirani, R. J., Taylor, J., Lockhart, R., & Tibshirani, R. (2016). Exact post-selection inference for sequential regression procedures. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111(514), 600–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2015.1108848
46. semTools Contributors (2016). semtools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.4-14. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/semTools/index.html
47. Tutz, G., & Schauberger, G. (2015). A penalty approach to differential item functioning in Rasch models. Psychometrika, 80(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9377-6
48. Vrieze, S. I. (2012). Model selection and psychological theory: A discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Psychological Methods, 17(2), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027127
49. Wellner, J., & Zhang, T. (2012). Introduction to the special issue on sparsity and regularization methods. Statistical Science, 27(4), 447–449. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-STS409
50. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In J. K. Bryant, M. Windle & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281–324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
51. Yoon, M., & Millsap, R. E. (2007). Detecting violations of factorial invariance using data-based specification searches: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 435–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301677
52. Zhang, C. H. (2010). Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty. Annals of Statistics, 38(2), 894–942. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-AOS729
53. Zhao, P., & Yu, B. (2006). On model selection consistency of lasso. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7, 2541–2563. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2006.883611
54. Zou, H. (2006). The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(476), 1418–1429. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000000735
55. Zou, H., Choi, J., & Oehlert, G. (2011). A penalized maximum likelihood approach to sparse factor analysis. Statistics and its Interface, 3, 429–436. https://doi.org/10.4310/SII.2010.v3.n4.a1