Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:11:13.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

25 - Structural Equation Modeling

from Part IV - Statistical Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

By
Rex B. Kline
Edited by
Austin Lee Nichols  and
John Edlund
Austin Lee Nichols
Affiliation:
Central European University, Vienna
John Edlund
Affiliation:
Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
Get access

Summary

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a family of statistical techniques and methods for testing hypotheses about causal effects among observed or proxies for latent variables. There are increasing numbers of SEM studies published in the research literatures of various disciplines, including psychology, education, medicine, management, and ecology, among others. Core types of structural equation models are described, and examples of causal hypotheses that can be tested in SEM are considered. Requirements for reporting the results of SEM analyses and common pitfalls to avoid are reviewed. Finally, an example of evaluating model fit is presented along with computer syntax so that readers can reproduce the results.

Keywords

Structural Equation ModelingCovariance Structure AnalysisCovariance-Based SEMCausal Models
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 1: Building a Program of Research
 , pp. 535 - 558
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., et al. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arbuckle, J. L. (2021). IBM SPSS Amos 28 User’s Guide. Amos Development Corporation.Google Scholar
Astrachan, C. B., Patel, V. K., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for theory development in family firm research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.12.002Google Scholar
Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1) 8–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-xGoogle Scholar
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M. & Wu, E. J. C. (2020). EQS 6.4 for Windows [Computer software]. Available at: https://mvsoft.com/.Google Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, 2nd ed. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Deng, L., Yang, M., & Marcoulides, K. M. (2018). Structural equation modeling with many variables: A systematic review of issues and developments. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 580. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00580Google Scholar
Fan, Y., Chen, J., Shirkey, G., et al. (2016). Applications of structural equation modeling (SEM) in ecological studies: An updated review. Ecological Processes, 5(1), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-016-0063-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filippetti, V. A. & Krumm, G. (2020). A hierarchical model of cognitive flexibility in children: Extending the relationship between flexibility, creativity and academic achievement. Child Neuropsychology, 26(6), 770–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2019.1711034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayduk, L. A. (2014). Shame for disrespecting evidence: The personal consequences of insufficient respect for structural equation model testing. Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), Article 124. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-124Google ScholarPubMed
Henley, A. B., Shook, C. L., & Peterson, M. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106290195Google Scholar
Hoyle, R. H. & Isherwood, J. C. (2013). Reporting results from structural equation modeling analyses in Archives of Scientific Psychology. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 1, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000004Google Scholar
JASP Team (2022). JASP (Version 0.16.1) [Computer software]. Available at: https://jasp-stats.org/Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In Bollen, K. A. & Lang, J. S. (eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 294–316). SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1976). LISREL III: Estimation of Linear Structural Equation Systems by Maximum Likelihood Methods. National Educational Resources.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (2021). LISREL 11 for Windows [Computer software]. Available at: https://ssicentral.com/.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. (2022). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling (R package 0.5-6). Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools.Google Scholar
Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<217::AID-SMJ95>3.0.CO;2-YGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A. & Milan, S. (2012). Identification: A nontechnical discussion of a technical issue. In Hoyle, R. H. (ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 145–163). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 5th ed. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kühnel, S. (2001). The didactical power of structural equation modeling. In Cudeck, R., Toit, S. du, & Sörbom, D. (eds.), Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future. A Festschrift in Honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 79–96). Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Lang, K. M. & Little, T. D. (2018). Principled missing data treatments. Prevention Science, 19(3), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0644-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64Google Scholar
Mulaik, S. A. (2009). Linear Causal Modeling with Structural Equations. CRC Press.Google Scholar
Müthen, L. K. & Müthen, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide, 8th ed. Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Boker, S., Nerale, M., Maes, H., et al. (2023). OpenMx: The OpenMx statistical modeling package. (R package 2.20.7). Available at. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=OpenMx.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellora, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. PNAS, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pek, J. & Hoyle, R. H. (2016). On the (in)validity of tests of simple mediation: Threats and solutions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(3), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12237Google Scholar
Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Recio, L. A., Martín, P., Carvajal, F., Ruiz, M., & Serrano, J. M. (2013). A holistic analysis of relationships between executive function and memory in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 35(2), 147–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2012.758240Google Scholar
Rigdon, E. E. (2012). Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: In praise of simple methods. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.010Google Scholar
Rosseel, Y., Jorgensen, T. D., & Rockwood, N. (2022). lavaan: Latent variable analysis (R package 0.6-11). Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lavaan.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (2021). SAS/STAT 15.2 User’s Guide. SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Sauvé, G., Kline, R. B., Shah, J. L., et al. (2019). Cognitive capacity similarly predicts insight into symptoms in first- and multiple-episode psychosis. Schizophrenia Research, 206, 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2018.11.013Google Scholar
Shah, R. & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
StataCorp LLC (1985–2021). Stata Structural Equation Modeling: Release 17. Stata Press.Google Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (2001). Driving fast in reverse: The relationship between software development, theory, and education in structural equation modeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(453), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214501750332893Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed. Pearson.Google Scholar
Tarka, P. (2018). An overview of structural equation modeling: Its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 51(1), 313–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0469-8Google Scholar
Teo, T. (2010). A case for using structural equation modelling (SEM) in educational technology research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 89–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00999.xGoogle Scholar
Textor, J., van der Zander, B., & Ankan, A. (2020). dagitty: Graphical analysis of structural causal models (R package 0.3-0.). Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dagitty.Google Scholar
Thelwall, M. & Wilson, P. (2016). Does research with statistics have more impact? The citation rank advantage of structural equation modeling. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 1233–1244. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23474Google Scholar
Tomarken, A. J. & Waller, N. G. (2003). Potential problems with “well-fitting” models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 578–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.578Google Scholar
Westfall, P. H., Henning, K. S. S., & Howell, R. D. (2012). The effect of error correlation on interfactor correlation in psychometric measurement. Structural Equation Modeling, 19(1), 99–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.634726Google Scholar
Williams, L. J. (2012). Equivalent models: Concepts, problems, alternatives. In Hoyle, R. H. (ed.), Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling (pp. 247–260). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Williams, T. C., Bach, C. C., Matthiesen, N. B., Henriksen, T. B., & Gagliardi, L. (2018). Directed acyclic graphs: A tool for causal studies in paediatrics. Pediatric Research, 84(4), 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-018-0071-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wold, H. (1982). Soft modeling: The basic design and some extensions. In Jöreskog, K. G. & Wold, H., (eds.), Systems Under Indirect Observations: Part II (pp. 1–54). North-Holland.Google Scholar
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1920). The relative importance of heredity and environment in determining the piebald pattern of guinea-pigs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 6(6), 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.6.6.320Google Scholar
von Oertzen, T., Brandmaier, A. M., & Tsang, S. (2015). Structural equation modeling with Ωnyx. Structural Equation Modeling, 22(1), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.935842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xia, Y. & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1),409–428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2Google Scholar
Yamaga, E., Sato, Y., & Minakuchi, S. (2013). A structural equation model relating oral condition, denture quality, chewing ability, satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life in complete denture wearers. Journal of Dentistry, 41(8), 710–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.015Google Scholar
Zhang, M. F., Dawson, J., & Kline, R. B. (2021). Evaluating the use of covariance-based structural equation modelling with reflective measurement in organisational and management research: A review and recommendations for best practice. British Journal of Management, 32(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12415Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Structural Equation Modeling
  • Edited by Austin Lee Nichols, Central European University, Vienna, John Edlund, Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • Online publication: 25 May 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.026
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Structural Equation Modeling
  • Edited by Austin Lee Nichols, Central European University, Vienna, John Edlund, Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • Online publication: 25 May 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.026
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Structural Equation Modeling
  • Edited by Austin Lee Nichols, Central European University, Vienna, John Edlund, Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • Online publication: 25 May 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.026
Available formats
×