16
Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Hans BaumgartnerPenn State University

Page 2: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Common problems Incomplete information

2 statistic and degrees of freedom Misinterpretation of overall model fit

Covariance fit vs. variance fit Reflective vs. formative indicators Discriminant validity Measurement model vs. latent variable model Questionable model modification

Size of MI vs. conceptual meaningfulness Correlated errors in equations vs. directed paths

Page 3: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Common problems Incomplete information

2 statistic and degrees of freedom Misinterpretation of overall model fit

Covariance fit vs. variance fit Reflective vs. formative indicators Discriminant validity Measurement model vs. latent variable model Questionable model modification

Size of MI vs. conceptual meaningfulness Correlated errors in equations vs. directed paths

Page 4: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Misinterpretation of overall model fit

Baumgartner and Homburg (1996) showed:□ the median number of degrees of freedom in type III

models was 49 (28, 124);□ The median percentage contribution of the

measurement model to the total number of degrees of freedom was 93 (81, 97);

□ the percentage of type III models for which R2 for structural equations was reported was 45;

Page 5: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Common problems Incomplete information

2 statistic and degrees of freedom Misinterpretation of overall model fit

Covariance fit vs. variance fit Reflective vs. formative indicators Discriminant validity Measurement model vs. latent variable model Questionable model modification

Size of MI vs. conceptual meaningfulness Correlated errors in equations vs. directed paths

Page 6: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Common problems Incomplete information

2 statistic and degrees of freedom Misinterpretation of overall model fit

Covariance fit vs. variance fit Reflective vs. formative indicators Discriminant validity Measurement model vs. latent variable model Questionable model modification

Size of MI vs. conceptual meaningfulness Correlated errors in equations vs. directed paths

Page 7: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

21

.8011

.71 .74 .64 .75 .75 .78 .70 .76

AVE ( 1 ) = .51 AVE ( 2 ) = .56

Discriminant validity

Page 8: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Common problems Incomplete information

2 statistic and degrees of freedom Misinterpretation of overall model fit

Covariance fit vs. variance fit Reflective vs. formative indicators Discriminant validity Measurement model vs. latent variable model Questionable model modification

Size of MI vs. conceptual meaningfulness Correlated errors in equations vs. directed paths

Page 9: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Desires

Perf

Exp

Descon

Expdis

SQ

Sat

Measurement model:2(38)=45.16RMSEA=.026SRMR=.016CFI=1.00TLI=1.00

Latent variable model:2(49)=151.55RMSEA=.088SRMR=.09CFI=.96TLI=.95

Desires Perf Exp Descon Expdis SQ Sat

Page 10: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Desires

Perf

Exp

Descon

Expdis

SQ

Sat

Measurement model:2(38)=45.16RMSEA=.026SRMR=.016CFI=1.00TLI=1.00

Latent variable model:2(49)=151.55RMSEA=.088SRMR=.09CFI=.96TLI=.95

Desires Perf Exp Descon Expdis SQ Sat

Page 11: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Common problems Incomplete information

2 statistic and degrees of freedom Misinterpretation of overall model fit

Covariance fit vs. variance fit Reflective vs. formative indicators Discriminant validity Measurement model vs. latent variable model Questionable model modification

Size of MI vs. conceptual meaningfulness Correlated errors in equations vs. directed paths

Page 12: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Desires

Perf

Exp

Descon

Expdis

SQ

Sat

?

Page 13: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Common problems (cont’d) Baron & Kenny and SEM Pooling data from multiple samples Assessment of measurement invariance

Page 14: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

1

2

1

3

Mediation

Page 15: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Common problems (cont’d)

Baron & Kenny and SEM Pooling data from multiple samples Assessment of measurement invariance

Page 16: Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University

Issues in structural equation modeling

Common problems (cont’d)

Baron & Kenny and SEM Pooling data from multiple samples Assessment of measurement invariance