A Monte Carlo Investigation of Methods for Controlling Type I Errors with Specification Searches in Structural Equation Modeling.

A standard strategy in structural equation modeling is to conduct multiple Lagrange multiplier (LM) tests after rejection of an initial model. Controlling for Type 1 error across these tests minimizes the likelihood of including unnecessary additional parameters in the model. Three methods for controlling Type I errors are evaluated using simulated data for factor analytic models: the standard approach which involves testing each parameter at the .05 level, a Bonferroni approach, and a simultaneous test procedure (STP). In the first part of the study, all samples were generated from a population in which all null hypotheses associated with the LM tests were correct. Three factors were manipu1,~ted: factor weights, sample size, and number of parameters in the specification search. The standard and the STP approaches yielded overly liberal and overly conservative familywise error rates, respectively, while the Bonferroni approach yielded error rates closer to the nominal level. In the second part of the study, data were generated in which one or more null hypotheses associated with the LM test were incorrect, and the number of parameters in the search was manipulated. Again the Bonferroni method was the best approach in controlling familywise: error rate, particularly when the alpha level was adjusted for the number of parameters evaluated at each step.

[1]  B. Thompson Editorial Policies Regarding Statistical Significance Testing : Three Suggested Reforms , 2012 .

[2]  F. Schmidt Statistical Significance Testing and Cumulative Knowledge in Psychology: Implications for Training of Researchers , 1996 .

[3]  Robert C. MacCallum,et al.  SPECIFICATION SEARCHES IN COVARIANCE STRUCTURE MODELING , 1986 .

[4]  D Kaplan,et al.  The Impact of Specification Error on the Estimation, Testing, and Improvement of Structural Equation Models. , 1988, Multivariate behavioral research.

[5]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[6]  P. Bentler,et al.  Model Modification in Covariance Structure Modeling: A Comparison among Likelihood Ratio, Lagrange Multiplier, and Wald Tests. , 1990, Multivariate behavioral research.

[7]  A. Boomsma Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in lisrel maximum likelihood estimation , 1985 .

[8]  James C. Anderson,et al.  Improper solutions in the analysis of covariance structures: Their interpretability and a comparison of alternate respecifications , 1987 .

[9]  S. Green,et al.  Control of Type I Errors with Multiple Tests of Constraints in Structural Equation Modeling. , 1997, Multivariate behavioral research.

[10]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: the problem of capitalization on chance. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications , 1988 .

[12]  D. Kaplan Evaluating and Modifying Covariance Structure Models: A Review and Recommendation. , 1990, Multivariate behavioral research.

[13]  W. Dunlap,et al.  On the Logic and Purpose of Significance Testing , 1997 .

[14]  J. S. Long,et al.  Testing Structural Equation Models , 1993 .