The Basics of Structural Equation Modeling

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a methodology for representing, estimating, and testing a network of relationships between variables (measured variables and latent constructs). This tutorial provides an introduction to SEM including comparisons between “traditional statistical” and SEM analyses. Examples include path analysis/ regression, repeated measures analysis/latent growth curve modeling, and confirmatory factor analysis. Participants will learn basic skills to analyze data with structural equation modeling. Rationale Analyzing research data and interpreting results can be complex and confusing. Traditional statistical approaches to data analysis specify default models, assume measurement occurs without error, and are somewhat inflexible. However, structural equation modeling requires specification of a model based on theory and research, is a multivariate technique incorporating measured variables and latent constructs, and explicitly specifies measurement error. A model (diagram) allows for specification of relationships between variables. Purpose The purpose of this tutorial is to provide participants with basic knowledge of structural equation modeling methodology. The goals are to present a powerful, flexible and comprehensive technique for investigating relationships between measured variables and latent constructs and to challenge participants to design and plan research where SEM is an appropriate analysis tool. Structural equation modeling (SEM) • is a comprehensive statistical approach to testing hypotheses about relations among observed and latent variables (Hoyle, 1995). • is a methodology for representing, estimating, and testing a theoretical network of (mostly) linear relations between variables (Rigdon, 1998). • tests hypothesized patterns of directional and nondirectional relationships among a set of observed (measured) and unobserved (latent) variables (MacCallum & Austin, 2000). Two goals in SEM are 1) to understand the patterns of correlation/covariance among a set of variables and 2) to explain as much of their variance as possible with the model specified (Kline, 1998). The purpose of the model, in the most common form of SEM, is to account for variation and covariation of the measured variables (MVs). Path analysis (e.g., regression) tests models and relationships among MVs. Confirmatory factor analysis tests models of relationships between latent variables (LVs or common factors) and MVs which are indicators of common factors. Latent growth curve models (LGM) estimate initial level (intercept), rate of change (slope), structural slopes, and variance. Special cases of SEM are regression, canonical correlation, confirmatory factor analysis, and repeated measures analysis of variance (Kline, 1998). Similarities between Traditional Statistical Methods and SEM SEM is similar to traditional methods like correlation, regression and analysis of variance in many ways. First, both traditional methods and SEM are based on linear statistical models. Second, statistical tests associated with both methods are valid if certain assumptions are met. Traditional methods assume a normal distribution and SEM assumes multivariate normality. Third, neither approach offers a test of causality. Differences Between Traditional and SEM Methods Traditional approaches differ from the SEM approach in several areas. First, SEM is a highly flexible and comprehensive methodology. This methodology is appropriate for investigating achievement, economic trends, health issues, family and peer dynamics, self-concept, exercise, self-efficacy, depression, psychotherapy, and other phenomenon. Second, traditional methods specify a default model whereas SEM requires formal specification of a model to be estimated and tested. SEM offers no default model and places few limitations on what types of relations can be specified. SEM model specification requires researchers to support hypothesis with theory or research and specify relations a priori. Third, SEM is a multivariate technique incorporating observed (measured) and unobserved variables (latent constructs) while traditional techniques analyze only measured variables. Multiple, related equations are solved simultaneously to determine parameter estimates with SEM methodology. Fourth, SEM allows researchers to recognize the imperfect nature of their measures. SEM explicitly specifies error while traditional methods assume measurement occurs without error. Fifth, traditional analysis provides straightforward significance tests to determine group differences, relationships between variables, or the amount of variance explained. SEM provides no straightforward tests to determine model fit. Instead, the best strategy for

[1]  A. Wyler,et al.  Seriousness of illness rating scale. , 1968, Journal of psychosomatic research.

[2]  James H. Johnson,et al.  Assessing the impact of life changes: development of the Life Experiences Survey. , 1978, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[3]  S. Maddi,et al.  An Alienation Test , 1979 .

[4]  D. Roth,et al.  Life events, fitness, hardiness, and health: a simultaneous analysis of proposed stress-resistance effects. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Terry E. Duncan,et al.  Modeling Incomplete Data in Exercise Behavior Research Using Structural Equation Methodology , 1994 .

[6]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. , 1995 .

[7]  Robert C. MacCallum,et al.  Model specification: Procedures, strategies, and related issues. , 1995 .

[8]  R. Hoyle The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. , 1995 .

[9]  B. Muthén,et al.  The relation between heavy alcohol use and bar patronage: a latent growth model. , 1996, Journal of studies on alcohol.

[10]  Terry E. Duncan,et al.  Latent Variable Modeling of Longitudinal and Multilevel Substance Use Data. , 1997, Multivariate behavioral research.

[11]  E. Stice,et al.  The relation between adolescent alcohol use and peer alcohol use: a longitudinal random coefficients model. , 1997, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[12]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[13]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[14]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. , 2000, Annual review of psychology.

[15]  Terry E. Duncan,et al.  Social support and efficacy cognitions in exercise adherence: A latent growth curve analysis , 1993, Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

[16]  Dianne M. Finkelstein,et al.  A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling , 2005, Technometrics.