Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:32:14.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Robustness of Estimates of Total Indirect Effects in Covariance Structure Models Estimated by Maximum Likelihood

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Clement A. Stone  and
Michael E. Sobel
Clement A. Stone*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Michael E. Sobel
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Clement A. Stone, Old Engineering Hall (Room 110), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The large sample distribution of total indirect effects in covariance structure models in well known. Using Monte Carlo methods, this study examines the applicability of the large sample theory to maximum likelihood estimates oftotal indirect effects in sample sizes of 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800. Two models are studied. Model 1 is a recursive model with observable variables and Model 2 is a nonrecursive model with latent variables. For the large sample theory to apply, the results suggest that sample sizes of 200 or more and 400 or more are required for models such as Model 1 and Model 2, respectively.

Keywords

indirect effectscovariance structure analysisMonte Carol methodsdelta method
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 337 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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

For helpful comments on a previous draft of this paper, we are grateful to Gerhard Arminger, Clifford C. Clogg, and several anonymous reviewers.

References

Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T. W. (1984). An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis 2nd ed.,, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. M. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (1986). Structural equation modeling and Psychometrika: An historical perspective on growth and achievements. Psychometrika, 51, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M., & Weeks, D. G. (1980). Linear structural equations with latent variables. Psychometrika, 45, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K. (1987). Total, direct, and indirect effects in structural equation models. In Clogg, C. C. (Eds.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 37–69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In Jöreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Part 1) (pp. 149–173). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Boomsma, A. (1983). On the robustness of LISREL (maximum likelihood estimation) against small sample size and non-normality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen.Google Scholar
Boomsma, A. (1985). Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in LISREL maximum likelihood estimation. Psychometrika, 50, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boomsma, A. (1986). On the use of bootstrap and jackknife in covariance analysis, Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. P., & Muller, M. E. (1958). A note on the generation of random normal deviates. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29, 610–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M. W. (1968). A comparison of factor analytic techniques. Psychometrika, 33, 267–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. (1982). Covariance structures. In Hawkins, D. M. (Eds.), Topics in applied multivariate analysis (pp. 72–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotic distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, O. D. (1970). Douncan's corrections of published text of “Peer influences on aspirations: A reinterpretation”. American Journal of Sociology, 76, 1042–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, O. D. (1975). Introduction to structural equation models, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, O. D., Featherman, D. L., & Duncan, B. (1972). Socioeconomic background and achievement, New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, O. D., Haller, A. O., & Portes, A. (1968). Peer influences on aspirations: A reinterpretation. American Journal of Sociology, 74, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folmer, N. (1981). Measurement of the effects of regional policy instruments by means of linear structural equation models and panel data. Environment and Planning, 13, 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. (1984). Linear statistical models and related methods with applications, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fox, J. (1985). Effect analysis in structural equation models: Calculation of specific indirect effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 14, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, E. H. (1982). The implementation of effect decomposition methods for two general structural covariance modeling systems, Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1987). Improper solutions in the analysis of covariance structures: Their interpretability and a comparison of alternate respecifications. Psychometrika, 52, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graff, J., & Schmidt, P. (1982). A general model for decomposition of effects. In Jöreskog, K. G. and Wold, H. (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation, Part I (pp. 131–148). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Harlow, L. L. (1985). Behavior of some elliptical theory estimators with nonnormal data in a covariance structures framework: A Monte Carlo study, Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1982). Recent developments in structural equation modeling. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 404–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least square methods, Chicago, IL: International Educational Services.Google Scholar
Law, A. W., & Kelton, W. D. (1982). Simulation modeling and analysis, New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1978). A simple comprehensive model for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 31, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. (1968). Data analysis, including statistics. In Lindzey, G., Aronson, E. (Eds.), Revised handbook of social psychology (Chapter 10), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Odell, P. L., & Feiveson, A. H. (1966). A numerical procedure to generate a sample covariance matrix. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61, 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quenouille, M. H. (1956). Notes on bias in estimation. Biometrika, 48, 433–440.Google Scholar
Rao, C. R. (1973). Linear statistical inference and its applications 2nd ed.,, New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrage, L. (1979). A more portable random number generator. ACM Transaction Software, 5, 132–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. B., & Hocking, R. R. (1972). Wishart variate generator. Algorithm AS53. Applied Statistics, 21, 341–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In Leinhardt, S. (Eds.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–313). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. In Tuma, N. B. (Eds.), Sociological methodology (pp. 159–186). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sobel, M. E. (1987). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, C. A. (1985). CINDESE: Computing indirect effects and their standard errors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 601–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, C. A. (1987). The robustness of indirect effects estimated in the Jöreskog-Keesling-Wiley covariance structure model, Tuscon: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Swain, A. J. (1975). A class of factor analytic estimation procedures with common asymptotic sampling properties. Psychometrika, 40, 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, J. S., & Bentler, P. M. (1985). Quasi-likelihood estimation in asymptotically efficient covariance structure models. 1984 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section, 658–662.Google Scholar
Zehna, P. W. (1966). Invariance of maximum likelihood estimation. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 37, 755–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar