Why you should consider SEM: A guide to getting started

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) offers researchers additional flexibility and enhanced research conclusions, yet it is still underutilized in accounting. This may be in part because many researchers are not sufficiently familiar with SEM. SEM can be difficult to apply, especially if the research study was not appropriately planned to accommodate the necessary assumptions and data requirements. This article helps researchers overcome some barriers to using SEM by providing a simple guide to effectively planning a study suitable for an SEM analysis while also suggesting references and additional reading on the topic. To further encourage the use of SEM, the practical benefits of using SEM over the traditional regression approach for some research situations are also explained. Finally, a comparison of a regression and an SEM analysis of the same data testing the same theoretical model is included in the Appendices A and B in order to compare the differences in the research conclusions obtained by the two methods of analysis.

[1]  L. A. Goodman.  On the Exact Variance of Products , 1960 .

[2]  J. M. Cortina,et al.  Big Things Have Small Beginnings: An Assortment of “Minor” Methodological Misunderstandings , 2002 .

[3]  Steven E. Kaplan,et al.  The Effects of Flexible Work Arrangements on Stressors, Burnout, and Behavioral Job Outcomes in Public Accounting , 2002 .

[4]  R. Kline.  Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2nd ed. , 2005 .

[5]  J. S. Long,et al.  Covariance Structure Models: An Introduction to LISREL , 1983 .

[6]  Richard G. Lomax,et al.  A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling , 2022 .

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

[8]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  R. Hoyle.  Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications , 1997 .

[10]  Stephen G. West,et al.  Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies , 1995 .

[11]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[12]  S. West,et al.  A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[13]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[14]  C Loehlin John,et al.  Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis , 1986 .

[15]  David J. Ketchen,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF THE USE OF STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH , 2004 .

[16]  K. E. Barron,et al.  Testing Moderator and Mediator Effects in Counseling Psychology Research. , 2004 .

[17]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Structural Equations with Latent Variables , 1989 .

[18]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[19]  Barbara M. Byrne,et al.  Structural equation modeling with EQS : basic concepts, applications, and programming , 2000 .

[20]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Correlation and causality , 1979 .

[21]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[22]  A. Boomsma.  On the robustness of LISREL (maximum likelihood estimation) against small sample size and non-normality. , 1984 .

[23]  I. Ajzen,et al.  A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action , 1992 .

[24]  G. Holmbeck.  Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators : examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures , 1997 .