In this article, we provide guidance for substantive researchers on the use of structural equation modeling in practice for theory testing and development. We present a comprehensive, two-step modeling approach that employs a series of nested models and sequential chi-square difference tests. We discuss the comparative advantages of this approach over a one-step approach. Considerations in specification, assessment of fit, and respecification of measurement models using confirmatory factor analysis are reviewed. As background to the two-step approach, the distinction between exploratory and confirmatory analysis, the distinction between complementary approaches for theory testing versus predictive application, and some developments in estimation methods also are discussed.

/pdf/structural-equation-modeling-in-practice-a-review-and-1ue2omj492.pdf

Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.

Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.

The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

/pdf/the-prisma-statement-for-reporting-systematic-reviews-and-3j53e5oe33.pdf

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Part One: The Context Of Educational Research Part Two: Planning Educational Research Part Three: Styles Of Educational Research Part Four: Strategies And Instruments For Data Collection And Researching Part Five: Data Analysis

Research Methods in Education

During the past 30 years, meta-analysis has been an indispensable tool for revealing the hidden meaning of our research literatures. The four articles in this special section on meta-analysis illus...

Meta-Analysis: A Constantly Evolving Research Integration Tool

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

/pdf/the-prisma-statement-for-reporting-systematic-reviews-and-48ibbzju0k.pdf

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

The estimate of the population correlation used in the formula for sampling error variance of a correlation is typically the observed correlation, but in meta-analysis the average of the observed correlations can be used. For the case in which there is no variation in the study population correlations or sample sizes and the number of studies is very large, the authors found that use of the average correlation estimator is more accurate than use of the traditional, individual correlation estimator, except in those rare cases in which the uncorrected population correlation is greater than .60. For typical sample sizes, when the uncorrected population correlation is between -.40 and .40, there is virtually no error in the meta-analysis credibility interval based on the average correlation estimator

Estimation of sampling error variance in the meta-analysis of correlations: use of average correlation in the homogeneous case

Child Provocativeness and Gender as Factors Contributing to the Blaming of Victims of Physical Child Abuse.

The primary aim of this study is to test a process model of cultural conflict styles. Specifically, we propose a theoretical framework for illuminating the relationship between individual-level equivalents of cultural variability dimensions and the face-maintenance dimensions, which, in turn, serve as guiding motives or criteria for selecting conflict strategies. In the model, it was predicted that the greater the individual’s construal of self as independent, the higher the concern for self-face maintenance, which, in turn, leads to the higher preference for forcing (dominating) conflict styles. In a separate path, it was also predicted that the greater the individual’s construal of self as interdependent, the higher the concern for other-face maintenance, which, in turn, leads to the higher preference for nonforcing (obliging, avoiding, integrating, and compromising) conflict styles. Data to test the proposed model were drawn from undergraduates of diverse cultural backgrounds, studying in Hawai‘i. After being presented at random with one of the three conflict situations, participants rated the scales measuring conflict styles, face maintenance dimensions, as well as scales to measure the independent and interdependent dimensions of their self-construals. The theoretical path model was supported by the data except for one path. The implications of the model for theory and practice are discussed.

A test of a cultural model of conflict styles

This chapter presents a metaanalysis of 14 empirical studies that assessed the correlations between three variables relevant to performance appraisal: ability, job knowledge, and performance itself. Performance is represented by two kinds of measurement: job-sample tests and supervisor ratings. Ability should be related to performance in two ways. First, to the extent that the job calls for reasoning, planning, or memory, speed and smoothness of performance will depend on cognitive ability. Second, ability determines the extent to which the person masters the knowledge required for efficient and excellent performance. Ability is especially important if the job requires adjustment to novel circumstances or change in behavior due to changing job requirements. The greater the extent to which the job can be laid out in manuals or training programs, the greater the extent to which ability will be relevant only indirectly through its relation to job knowledge.

A Causal Analysis of Cognitive Ability, Job Knowledge, Job Performance, and Supervisor Ratings

John E . Hunter and T . Daniel Coggin N ow that national stock markets have developed in a number of countries, investors are increasingly attempting to diversify risk by spreading their portfolios across different national stock markets. Recent comprehensive summaries of the growing international portfolio selection literature are given in Adler and Dumas [1983] and Solnik [1988]. The extent to which investment risk can be diversified depends upon the degree to which national markets are dependent upon each other. If all national markets were completely dominated by a single world market factor (i.e., if all cross-national correlations were 1 .OO), then international diversification would have no benefit. If all national markets were completely independent (that is, if all cross-national zorrelations were zero), then international diversifization over an infinite number of countries would zompletely eliminate the effect of variation in national .narkets. Studies of stocks within the United States have :ound that the correlation structure of returns is .argely explained by a “single index” model. That is, .here is one dominant causal agent or ”market factor” *n the correlation structure of stock returns (see, e.g., .<ing [1966], Cohen and Pogue [1967], and Elton and 3ruber [1973]). Other factors, such as industry group, xere present but have been found to be of relatively ninor importance. In recent research that has sparked considerible debate, multi-factor models derived from the aritrage pricing theory still find a single dominant ‘actor in U.S. and Canadian stock return correlation natrices (see Kryzanowski and To [1983], Conway 33 5 3 8 2

John E. Hunter

Papers

Estimation of sampling error variance in the meta-analysis of correlations: use of average correlation in the homogeneous case

Child Provocativeness and Gender as Factors Contributing to the Blaming of Victims of Physical Child Abuse.

A test of a cultural model of conflict styles

A Causal Analysis of Cognitive Ability, Job Knowledge, Job Performance, and Supervisor Ratings

An analysis of the diversification benefit from international equity investment