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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Expected versus observed information in SEM with incomplete normal and nonnormal data.

Maximum likelihood is the most common estimation method in structural equation modeling. Standard errors for maximum likelihood estimates are obtained from the associated information matrix, which can be estimated from the sample using either expected or observed information. It is known that, with complete data, estimates based on observed or expected information are consistent. The situation changes with incomplete data. When the data are missing at random (MAR), standard errors based on expected information are not consistent, and observed information should be used. A less known fact is that in the presence of nonnormality, the estimated information matrix also enters the robust computations (both standard errors and the test statistic). Thus, with MAR nonnormal data, the use of the expected information matrix can potentially lead to incorrect robust computations. This article summarizes the results of 2 simulation studies that investigated the effect of using observed versus expected information estimates of standard errors and test statistics with normal and nonnormal incomplete data. Observed information is preferred across all conditions. Recommendations to researchers and software developers are outlined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effect of warm rolling on the martensitic transformation and properties of austenitic steels

Conclusion The optimal preliminary rolling conditions are 300°C with =45%, which produces fairly high strength and ductile characteristics.S. M. Kirov Ural Polytechnical Institute. Translated from Metallovedenie i Termicheskaya Obrabotka Metallov, No. 12, pp. 42–44, December, 1974.