Improper Solutions in Structural Equation Models

In this article, the authors examine the most common type of improper solutions: zero or negative error variances. They address the causes of, consequences of, and strategies to handle these issues. Several hypotheses are evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation models, including two structural equation models with several misspecifications of each model. Results suggested several unique findings. First, increasing numbers of omitted paths in the measurement model were associated with decreasing numbers of improper solutions. Second, bias in the parameter estimates was higher in samples with improper solutions than in samples including only proper solutions. Third, investigations of the consequences of using constrained estimates in the presence of improper solutions indicated that inequality constraints helped some samples achieve convergence. Finally, the use of confidence intervals as well as four other proposed tests yielded similar results when testing whether the error variance was greater than or equal to zero.

[1]  A. Satorra,et al.  Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis , 1985 .

[2]  Albert Satorra,et al.  Robustness issues in structural equation modeling: a review of recent developments , 1990 .

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

[4]  T. Dijkstra,et al.  On statistical inference with parameter estimates on the boundary of the parameter space , 1992 .

[5]  Manabu Sato Pragmatic treatment of improper solutions in factor analysis , 1987 .

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

[7]  W. R. Davis,et al.  The FC1 Rule of Identification for Confirmatory Factor Analysis , 1993 .

[8]  James C. Anderson,et al.  The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis , 1984 .

[9]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  NEW METHODS IN MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD FACTOR ANALYSIS , 1967 .

[10]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Outliers and Improper Solutions , 1987 .

[11]  David Rindskopf,et al.  Structural Equation Models , 1984 .

[12]  William R. Dillon,et al.  Offending Estimates in Covariance Structure Analysis: Comments on the Causes of and Solutions to Heywood Cases , 1987 .

[13]  Noel G. Cadigan,et al.  Local influence in structural equation models , 1995 .

[14]  O. P. V. Driel,et al.  On various causes of improper solutions in maximum likelihood factor analysis , 1978 .