Missing Data Techniques for Structural Equation Modeling.

As with other statistical methods, missing data often create major problems for the estimation of structural equation models (SEMs). Conventional methods such as listwise or pairwise deletion generally do a poor job of using all the available information. However, structural equation modelers are fortunate that many programs for estimating SEMs now have maximum likelihood methods for handling missing data in an optimal fashion. In addition to maximum likelihood, this article also discusses multiple imputation. This method has statistical properties that are almost as good as those for maximum likelihood and can be applied to a much wider array of models and estimation methods. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling: A Two-Stage Approach.

To synthesize studies that use structural equation modeling (SEM), researchers usually use Pearson correlations (univariate r), Fisher z scores (univariate z), or generalized least squares (GLS) to combine the correlation matrices. The pooled correlation matrix is then analyzed by the use of SEM. Questionable inferences may occur for these ad hoc procedures. A 2-stage structural equation modeling (TSSEM) method is proposed to incorporate meta-analytic techniques and SEM into a unified framework. Simulation results reveal that the univariate-r, univariate-z, and TSSEM methods perform well in testing the homogeneity of correlation matrices and estimating the pooled correlation matrix. When fitting SEM, only TSSEM works well. The GLS method performed poorly in small to medium samples. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Structural Equation Modeling of Paired-Comparison and Ranking Data.

L. L. Thurstone's (1927) model provides a powerful framework for modeling individual differences in choice behavior. An overview of Thurstonian models for comparative data is provided, including the classical Case V and Case III models as well as more general choice models with unrestricted and factor-analytic covariance structures. A flow chart summarizes the model selection process. The authors show how to embed these models within a more familiar structural equation modeling (SEM) framework. The different special cases of Thurstone's model can be estimated with a popular SEM statistical package, including factor analysis models for paired comparisons and rankings. Only minor modifications are needed to accommodate both types of data. As a result, complex models for comparative judgments can be both estimated and tested efficiently. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Introduction to the Special Section on Structural Equation Modeling.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a frequently used data-analytic technique in psychopathology research. This popularity is due to the unique capabilities and broad applicability of SEM and to recent advances in model and software development. Unfortunately, the popularity and accessibility of SEM is matched by its complexities and ambiguities. Thus, users are often faced with difficult decisions regarding a variety of issues. This special section is designed to increase the effective use of SEM by reviewing recently developed modeling capabilities, identifying common problems in application, and recommending appropriate strategies for analysis and evaluation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Testing Mediational Models With Longitudinal Data: Questions and Tips in the Use of Structural Equation Modeling.

R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny (1986; see record 1987-13085-001) provided clarion conceptual and methodological guidelines for testing mediational models with cross-sectional data. Graduating from cross-sectional to longitudinal designs enables researchers to make more rigorous inferences about the causal relations implied by such models. In this transition, misconceptions and erroneous assumptions are the norm. First, we describe some of the questions that arise (and misconceptions that sometimes emerge) in longitudinal tests of mediational models. We also provide a collection of tips for structural equation modeling (SEM) of mediational processes. Finally, we suggest a series of 5 steps when using SEM to test mediational processes in longitudinal designs: testing the measurement model, testing for added components, testing for omitted paths, testing the stationarity assumption, and estimating the mediational effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Multilevel Modeling of Two Cyclical Processes: Extending Differential Structural Equation Modeling to Nonlinear Coupled Systems.

The authors present a dynamical multilevel model that captures changes over time in the bidirectional, potentially asymmetric influence of 2 cyclical processes. S. M. Boker and J. Graham's (1998) differential structural equation modeling approach was expanded to the case of a nonlinear coupled oscillator that is common in bimanual coordination studies in which participants swing hand-held pendulums but is also applicable to social systems in general. The authors' nonlinear coupled oscillator model decomposed the fluctuations into a competitive component, unique to each individual variable, and a cooperative component that captured bidirectional influence. The authors' model also generated an index of the symmetry/asymmetry of bidirectional influence. Together, the models are useful quantitative tools for the study of interacting, changing processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Structural Equation Models for Interchangeable Dyads: Being the Same Makes a Difference.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) offers a flexible method for studying the patterns of interdependence in partners' behavior, which lie at the heart of interactions and relationships. Although SEM has been applied to the study of distinguishable dyads, in which partners are distinguishable by type, such as male and female, it has rarely been applied to the study of interchangeable dyads, such as male-male or female-female pairs. The authors integrate a wide range of dyadic interdependence models--including actor-partner interdependence models, mutual-influence models, and common-fate or dyadic personality models--into an SEM framework for use with interchangeable dyads. The authors also address the use of latent variables at both the dyadic and individual levels, whereby substantive relationships in these models can be corrected for errors of measurement. Furthermore, the authors discuss the conceptual underpinnings of dyadic models and give examples of their application. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The impact of nonnormality on full information maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation models with missing data.

A Monte Carlo simulation examined full information maximum-likelihood estimation (FIML) in structural equation models with nonnormal indicator variables. The impacts of 4 independent variables were examined (missing data algorithm, missing data rate, sample size, and distribution shape) on 4 outcome measures (parameter estimate bias, parameter estimate efficiency, standard error coverage, and model rejection rates). Across missing completely at random and missing at random patterns, FIML parameter estimates involved less bias and were generally more efficient than those of ad hoc missing data techniques. However, similar to complete-data maximum-likelihood estimation in structural equation modeling, standard errors were negatively biased and model rejection rates were inflated. Simulation results suggest that recently developed correctives for missing data (e.g., rescaled statistics and the bootstrap) can mitigate problems that stem from nonnormal data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Structural equation modeling of multitrait-multimethod data: Different models for different types of methods.

The question as to which structural equation model should be selected when multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data are analyzed is of interest to many researchers. In the past, attempts to find a well-fitting model have often been data-driven and highly arbitrary. In the present article, the authors argue that the measurement design (type of methods used) should guide the choice of the statistical model to analyze the data. In this respect, the authors distinguish between (a) interchangeable methods, (b) structurally different methods, and (c) the combination of both kinds of methods. The authors present an appropriate model for each type of method. All models allow separating measurement error from trait influences and trait-specific method effects. With respect to interchangeable methods, a multilevel confirmatory factor model is presented. For structurally different methods, the correlated trait-correlated (method-1) model is recommended. Finally, the authors demonstrate how to appropriately analyze data from MTMM designs that simultaneously use interchangeable and structurally different methods. All models are applied to empirical data to illustrate their proper use. Some implications and guidelines for modeling MTMM data are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A meta-analytic investigation of the structure of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.

Converging lines of evidence have called into question the validity of conceptualizations of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and suggested alternative structural models of PTSD symptomatology. We conducted a meta-analysis of 40 PTSD studies (N = 14,827 participants across studies) that used a DSM-based measure to assess PTSD severity. We aggregated correlation matrices across studies and then applied confirmatory factor analysis to the aggregated matrices to test the fit of competing models of PTSD symptomatology that have gained support in the literature. Results indicated that both prominent 4-factor models of PTSD symptomatology yielded good model fit across subsamples of studies; however, the model comprising Intrusions, Avoidance, Hyperarousal, and Dysphoria factors appeared to fit better across studies. Results also indicated that the best fitting models were not moderated by measure or sample type. Results are discussed in the context of structural models of PTSD and implications for the diagnostic nosology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures.

Two classes of modem missing data procedures, maximum likelihood (ML) and multiple imputation (MI), tend to yield similar results when implemented in comparable ways. In either approach, it is possible to include auxiliary variables solely for the purpose of improving the missing data procedure. A simulation was presented to assess the potential costs and benefits of a restrictive strategy, which makes minimal use of auxiliary variables, versus an inclusive strategy, which makes liberal use of such variables. The simulation showed that the inclusive strategy is to be greatly preferred. With an inclusive strategy not only is there a reduced chance of inadvertently omitting an important cause of missingness, there is also the possibility of noticeable gains in terms of increased efficiency and reduced bias, with only minor costs. As implemented in currently available software, the MI approach tends to encourage the use of a restrictive strategy, whereas the MI approach makes it relatively simple to use an inclusive strategy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evaluating model fit for growth curve models: Integration of fit indices from SEM and MLM frameworks.

Evaluating overall model fit for growth curve models involves 3 challenging issues. (a) Three types of longitudinal data with different implications for model fit may be distinguished: balanced on time with complete data, balanced on time with data missing at random, and unbalanced on time. (b) Traditional work on fit from the structural equation modeling (SEM) perspective has focused only on the covariance structure, but growth curve models have four potential sources of misspecification: within-individual covariance matrix, between-individuals covariance matrix, marginal mean structure, and conditional mean structure. (c) Growth curve models can be estimated in both the SEM and multilevel modeling (MLM) frameworks; these have different emphases for the evaluation of model fit. In this article, the authors discuss the challenges presented by these 3 issues in the calculation and interpretation of SEM- and MLM-based fit indices for growth curve models and conclude by identifying some lines for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)