We consider models which combine latent class measurement models for categorical latent variables with structural regression models for the relationships between the latent classes and observed explanatory and response variables. We propose a two-step method of estimating such models. In its first step, the measurement model is estimated alone, and in the second step the parameters of this measurement model are held fixed when the structural model is estimated. Simulation studies and applied examples suggest that the two-step method is an attractive alternative to existing one-step and three-step methods. We derive estimated standard errors for the two-step estimates of the structural model which account for the uncertainty from both steps of the estimation, and show how the method can be implemented in existing software for latent variable modelling.

Discretized multivariate normal structural models are often estimated using multistage estimation procedures. The asymptotic properties of parameter estimates, standard errors, and tests of structural restrictions on thresholds and polychoric correlations are well known. It was not clear how to assess the overall discrepancy between the contingency table and the model for these estimators. It is shown that the overall discrepancy can be decomposed into a distributional discrepancy and a structural discrepancy. A test of the overall model specification is proposed, as well as a test of the distributional specification (i.e., discretized multivariate normality). Also, the small sample performance of overall, distributional, and structural tests, as well as of parameter estimates and standard errors is investigated under conditions of correct model specification and also under mild structural and/or distributional misspecification. It is found that relatively small samples are needed for parameter estimates, standard errors, and structural tests. Larger samples are needed for the distributional and overall tests. Furthermore, parameter estimates, standard errors, and structural tests are surprisingly robust to distributional misspecification.