Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:37:04.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Nonequivalence of Several Procedures of Structural Equation Modeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ke-Hai Yuan  and
Wai Chan
Ke-Hai Yuan*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Wai Chan
Affiliation:
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Ke-Hai Yuan, Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA. Email: kyuan@nd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The normal theory based maximum likelihood procedure is widely used in structural equation modeling. Three alternatives are: the normal theory based generalized least squares, the normal theory based iteratively reweighted least squares, and the asymptotically distribution-free procedure. When data are normally distributed and the model structure is correctly specified, the four procedures are asymptotically equivalent. However, this equivalence is often used when models are not correctly specified. This short paper clarifies conditions under which these procedures are not asymptotically equivalent. Analytical results indicate that, when a model is not correct, two factors contribute to the nonequivalence of the different procedures. One is that the estimated covariance matrices by different procedures are different, the other is that they use different scales to measure the distance between the sample covariance matrix and the estimated covariance matrix. The results are illustrated using real as well as simulated data. Implication of the results to model fit indices is also discussed using the comparative fit index as an example.

Keywords

generalized least squaresincorrect modelincremental fit indexmaximum likelihoodnoncentrality parameter
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 791 - 798
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The work described in this paper was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Project No. CUHK 4170/99M) and by NSF grant DMS04-37167.

References

Anderson, T.W. (1973). Asymptotically efficient estimation of covariance matrices with linear structure. Annals of Statistics, 1, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P.M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.Google Scholar
Bentler, P.M., & Dijkstra, T.K. (1985). Efficient estimation via linearization in structural models. In Krishnaiah, P.R. (Ed.), Multivariate analysis VI (pp. 9–42). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bishop, Y.M.M., Fienberg, S.E., Holland, P.W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Browne, M.W. (1974). Generalized least-squares estimators in the analysis of covariance structures. South African Statistical Journal, 8, 1–24.Google Scholar
Browne, M.W. (1984). Asymptotic distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holzinger, K.J., Swineford, F. (1939). A study in factor analysis: The stability of a bi-factor solution. University of Chicago: Supplementary Educational Monographs, No. 48.Google Scholar
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G., Goldberger, A.S. (1972). Factor analysis by generalized least squares. Psychometrika, 37, 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Du, T.J., Tanaka, J.S. (1989). The influence of sample size, estimation method, and model specification on goodness-of-fit assessments in structural equation models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.-Y., Jennrich, R.I. (1979). A study of algorithms for covariance structure analysis with specific comparisons using factor analysis. Psychometrika, 44, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, J.R., Neudecker, H. (1999). Matrix differential calculus with applications in statistics and econometrics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McDonald, R.P., Ho, R.M. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, R.P., Marsh, H.W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitman, E.J.G. (1948). Lecture notes on nonparametric statistical inference. Columbia University.Google Scholar
Satorra, A. (1989). Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach. Psychometrika, 54, 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A., Saris, W.E. (1985). Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A., Saris, W.E., de Pijper, W.M. (1991). A comparison of several approximations to the power function of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis. Statistica Neerlandica, 45, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, A. (1983). Asymptotic distribution theory in the analysis of covariance structures (A unified approach). South African Statistical Journal, 17, 33–81.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. (1985). Asymptotic equivalence of minimum discrepancy function estimators to GLS estimators. South African Statistical Journal, 19, 73–81.Google Scholar
Steiger, J.H., Shapiro, A., Browne, M.W. (1985). On the multivariate asymptotic distribution of sequential chi-square statistics. Psychometrika, 50, 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, T.W.F. (1972). Fixed alternatives and Wald's formulation of the noncentral asymptotic behavior of the likelihood ratio statistic. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 43, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugawara, H.M., MacCallum, R.C. (1993). Effect of estimation method on incremental fit indexes for covariance structure models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, A.J. (1975). A class of factor analysis estimation procedures with common asymptotic sampling properties. Psychometrika, 40, 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, J.S. (1987). “How big is big enough?”: Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with latent variables. Child Development, 58, 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weng, L.-J., Cheng, C.-P. (1997). Why might relative fit indices differ between estimators?. Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, K.-H., Hayashi, H. (2003). Bootstrap approach to inference and power analysis based on three test statistics for covariance structure models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 56, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yuan, K.-H., & Hayashi, K. (2004). Standard errors with misspecified covariance structure models. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Yuan, K.-H., Marshall, L. L. (2004). A new measure of misfit for covariance structure models. Behaviormetrika, 31, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar