Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T16:14:10.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What can we Learn from the Path Equations?: Identifiability, Constraints, Equivalence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Roderick P. McDonald
Roderick P. McDonald*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to R.P. McDonald, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 603 E. Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820. E-Mail: rmcdonal@s.psych.uiuc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Procedures are given for determining identified parameters, finding constraints on the covariances, and checking equivalence, in acyclic (recursive) linear path models with correlated error terms (disturbances), by inspection of the path equations, aided by simple recursions. This provides a useful and general alternative to the employment of directed acyclic graph theory for such purposes.

Keywords

path analysisstructural equation modelsidentifiabilityequivalent models
Type
Articles
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 225 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 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

Thanks are due to Judea Pearl for his guidance through all phases of this work, and to Larry Hubert for his careful reading of the manuscript. Any errors that remain are solely the responsibility of the author.

References

Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P.M. (1985). Theory and implementation of EQS: A structural equations program. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software.Google Scholar
Blalock, H.M. (1962). Four-variable causal models and partial correlations. American Journal of Sociology, 68, 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Outlier screening and a distribution-free test for vanishing tetrads. Sociological Methodology and Research, 19, 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, R.J., & Turkington, D.A. (1984). Instrumental variables. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1979). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
Kenny, D.A. (1974). A test for a vanishing tetrad: The second canonical correlation equals zero. Social Science Research, 3, 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S., & Hershberger, S.A. (1990). A simple rule for generating equivalent models in covariance structure modelling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 313–334.CrossRefGoogle 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
McDonald, R.P. (1980). A simple comprehensive model for the analysis of covariance structures: Some remarks on applications. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 33, 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R.P. (1997). Haldane's lungs: A case study in path analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (1998). Graphs, causality, and structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 27, 226–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raykov, T., & Penev, S. (1999). On structural equation model equivalence. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheines, R., Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., Meek, C., & Richardson, T. (1998). The TETRAD project: constraint based aids to causal model specification. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 65–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shipley, B. (2000). A new inferential test for path models based on directed acyclic graphs. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1953). Causal ordering and identifiability. In Hood, W.C., & Koopmans, T.C. (Eds.), Studies in econometric method (pp. 49–74). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Spirtes, P., Richardson, T., Meek, C., Scheines, R., & Glymour, C. (1998). Path diagrams as a structural equation modeling tool. Sociological Methods and Research, 27, 182–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stelzl, I. (1986). Changing a causal hypothesis without changing the fit: Some rules for generating equivalent path models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strotz, R.H., & Wold, H.O.A. (1960). Recursive versus nonrecursive systems: An attempt at synthesis. Econometrica, 28, 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, T.S., & Pearl, J. (1990). Equivalence and synthesis of causal models. In Bonissone, P.P. (Eds.), Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 220–227). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 21, 557–585.Google Scholar