Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T16:36:44.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mean Comparison: Manifest Variable Versus Latent Variable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ke-Hai Yuan  and
Peter M. Bentler
Ke-Hai Yuan*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Peter M. Bentler
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Ke-Hai Yuan (kyuan@nd.edu), Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mean comparisons are of great importance in the application of statistics. Procedures for mean comparison with manifest variables have been well studied. However, few rigorous studies have been conducted on mean comparisons with latent variables, although the methodology has been widely used and documented. This paper studies the commonly used statistics in latent variable mean modeling and compares them with parallel manifest variable statistics. Our results indicate that, under certain conditions, the likelihood ratio and Wald statistics used for latent mean comparisons do not always have greater power than the Hotelling T2 statistics used for manifest mean comparisons. The noncentrality parameter corresponding to the T2 statistic can be much greater than those corresponding to the likelihood ratio and Wald statistics, which we find to be different from those provided in the literature. Under a fixed alternative hypothesis, our results also indicate that the likelihood ratio statistic can be stochastically much greater than the corresponding Wald statistic. The robustness property of each statistic is also explored when the model is misspecified or when data are nonnormally distributed. Recommendations and advice are provided for the use of each statistic.

Keywords

noncentrality parameterlikelihood ratio statisticWald statisticempirical powerparameter biasasymptotic robustness

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 139 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The research was supported by NSF grant DMS-0437167 and Grant DA01070 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

We would like to thank three referees for suggestions that helped in improving the paper.

References

Algina, J., & Oshima, T.C. (1990). Robustness of the independent samples Hotelling’s T2 to variance—covariance heteroscedasticity when sample sizes are unequal and in small ratios. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amemiya, Y., & Anderson, T.W. (1990). Asymptotic chi-square tests for a large class of factor analysis models. Annals of Statistics, 18, 1453–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, S.F. (1981). The theory of linear models and multivariate analysis, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bagozzi, R.P. (1977). Structural equation models in experimental research. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P.M. (1968). Alpha-maximized factor analysis (Alphamax): Its relation to alpha and canonical factor analysis. Psychometrika, 33, 335–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P.M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual, Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.Google Scholar
Bentler, P.M., & Yuan, K.-H. (2000). On adding a mean structure to a covariance structure model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 326–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M.W., & Arminger, G. (1995). Specification and estimation of mean and covariance structure models. In Arminger, G., Clogg, C.C., & Sobel, M.E. (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 185–249). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M.W., & Shapiro, A. (1988). Robustness of normal theory methods in the analysis of linear latent variate models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buse, A. (1982). The likelihood ratio, Wald, and Lagrange multiplier tests: An expository note. American Statistician, 36, 153–157.Google Scholar
Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factorial covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chou, C.-P., & Bentler, P.M. (1990). Model modification in covariance structure modeling: A comparison among likelihood ratio, Lagrange multiplier, and Wald tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 115–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cole, D.A., Maxwell, S.E., Arvey, R., & Salas, E. (1993). Multivariate group comparisons of variable systems: MANOVA and structural equation modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, P.J. (2000). A latent curve framework for the study of developmental trajectories in adolescent substance use. In Rose, J.R., Chassin, L., Presson, C.C., & Sherman, S.J. (Eds.), Multivariate applications in substance use research: New methods for new questions (pp. 1–42). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Duncan, T.E., Duncan, S.C., Strycker, L.A., Li, F., & Alpert, A. (1999). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap, New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. (1984). Wald, likelihood ratio and Lagrange multiplier tests in econometrics. In Griliches, Z., & Intrilligator, M.D. (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics (Vol. II, pp. 775–826). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, T. (1996). A course in large sample theory, London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakstian, A.R., Roed, J.C., & Lind, J.C. (1979). Two-sample T2 procedure and the assumption of homogeneous covariance matrices. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, G.R. (2001). Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and MIMIC approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct. Psychometrika, 66, 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, G.R. (2003). Fortune cookies, measurement error, and experimental design. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 2, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, G.R., Lawrence, F.R., & Nevitt, J. (2000). Type I error and power of latent mean methods and MANOVA in factorially invariant and noninvariant latent variable systems. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 534–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, G.R., & Mueller, R.O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability. In Cudeck, R., du Toit, S., & Sörbom, D. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Ito, K., & Schull, W.J. (1964). On the robustness of the T 02 test in multivariate analysis of variance when variance–covariance matrices are not equal. Biometrika, 51, 71–82.Google Scholar
Kano, Y. (1986). Conditions on consistency of estimators in the covariance structure model. Journal of the Japan Statistical Society, 16, 75–80.Google Scholar
Kano, Y. (1995). An asymptotic expansion of the distribution of Hotelling’s T2-statistic under general distributions. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences, 15, 317–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kano, Y. (2001). Structural equation modeling for experimental data. In Cudeck, R., du Toit, S.H.C., & Sörbom, D. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 381–402). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kano, Y., Bentler, P.M., & Mooijaart, A. (1993). Additional information and precision of estimators in multivariate structural models. In Matusita, K., Puri, M.L., & Hayakawa, T. (Eds.), Statistical sciences and data analysis (pp. 187–196). Zeist, Netherlands: VSP International Science..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D., & George, R. (1995). A study of the power associated with testing factor mean differences under violations of factorial invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühnel, S.M. (1988). Testing MANOVA designs with LISREL. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 504–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H. (1997). A unifying expression for the maximal reliability of a linear composite. Psychometrika, 62, 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, J.R., & Neudecker, H. (1999). Matrix differential calculus with applications in statistics and econometrics, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McArdle, J.J., & Epstein, D. (1987). Latent growth curves with developmental structure equation models. Child Development, 58, 110–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meredith, W., & Tisak, J. (1990). Latent curve analysis. Psychometrika, 55, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, B. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54, 557–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raykov, T. (2004). Estimation of maximal reliability: A note on a covariance structure modeling approach. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 21–27.Google Scholar
Rudin, W. (1976). Principles of mathematical analysis, (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Satorra, A. (1989). Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach. Psychometrika, 54, 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1990). Model conditions for asymptotic robustness in the analysis of linear relations. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 10, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A., & Saris, W. (1985). Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 83–90.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. (1984). A note on the consistency of estimators in the analysis of moment structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structures between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle 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
Wakaki, H., Yanagihara, H., & Fujikoshi, Y. (2002). Asymptotic expansions of the null distributions of test statistics for multivariate linear hypothesis under nonnormality. Hiroshima Mathematical Journal, 32, 17–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, A. (1943). Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 54, 426–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanagihara, H., & Yuan, K.-H. (2005). Three approximate solutions to the multivariate Behrens—Fisher problem. Communication in Statistics—Simulation and Computation, 34, 975–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P.M. (1998). Normal theory based test statistics in structural equation modeling. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 51, 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). On normal theory and associated test statistics in covariance structure analysis under two classes of nonnormal distributions. Statistica Sinica, 9, 831–853.Google Scholar
Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P.M. (2002). On robustness of the normal-theory based asymptotic distributions of three reliability coefficient estimates. Psychometrika, 67, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P.M. (2004). On chi-square difference and z tests in mean and covariance structure analysis when the base model is misspecified. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 737–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, K.-H., Bentler, P.M., & Kano, Y. (1997). On averaging variables in a confirmatory factor analysis model. Behaviormetrika, 24, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, K.-H., & Chan, W. (2005). On nonequivalence of several procedures of structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 70, 791–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, K.-H., Marshall, L.L., & Bentler, P.M. (2002). A unified approach to exploratory factor analysis with missing data, nonnormal data, and in the presence of outliers. Psychometrika, 67, 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, K.-H., Marshall, L.L., & Bentler, P.M. (2003). Assessing the effect of model misspecifications on parameter estimates in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 33, 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yung, Y.-F., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). On added information for ML factor analysis with mean and covariance structures. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar