Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a vast field and widely used by many applied researchers in the social and behavioral sciences. Over the years, many software packages for structural equation modeling have been developed, both free and commercial. However, perhaps the best state-of-the-art software packages in this field are still closed-source and/or commercial. The R package lavaan has been developed to provide applied researchers, teachers, and statisticians, a free, fully open-source, but commercial-quality package for latent variable modeling. This paper explains the aims behind the development of the package, gives an overview of its most important features, and provides some examples to illustrate how lavaan works in practice.

/pdf/lavaan-an-r-package-for-structural-equation-modeling-241rrq51a8.pdf

lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling

Statistical procedures for missing data have vastly improved, yet misconception and unsound practice still abound. The authors frame the missing-data problem, review methods, offer advice, and raise issues that remain unresolved. They clear up common misunderstandings regarding the missing at random (MAR) concept. They summarize the evidence against older procedures and, with few exceptions, discourage their use. They present, in both technical and practical language, 2 general approaches that come highly recommended: maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian multiple imputation (MI). Newer developments are discussed, including some for dealing with missing data that are not MAR. Although not yet in the mainstream, these procedures may eventually extend the ML and MI methods that currently represent the state of the art.

/pdf/missing-data-our-view-of-the-state-of-the-art-3xnwc88wmd.pdf

Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.

This study evaluated the sensitivity of maximum likelihood (ML)-, generalized least squares (GLS)-, and asymptotic distribution-free (ADF)-based fit indices to model misspecification, under conditions that varied sample size and distribution. The effect of violating assumptions of asymptotic robustness theory also was examined. Standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) was the most sensitive index to models with misspecified factor covariance(s), and Tucker-Lewis Index (1973; TLI), Bollen's fit index (1989; BL89), relative noncentrality index (RNI), comparative fit index (CFI), and the MLand GLS-based gamma hat, McDonald's centrality index (1989; Me), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) were the most sensitive indices to models with misspecified factor loadings. With ML and GLS methods, we recommend the use of SRMR, supplemented by TLI, BL89, RNI, CFI, gamma hat, Me, or RMSEA (TLI, Me, and RMSEA are less preferable at small sample sizes). With the ADF method, we recommend the use of SRMR, supplemented by TLI, BL89, RNI, or CFI. Finally, most of the ML-based fit indices outperformed those obtained from GLS and ADF and are preferable for evaluating model fit.

Fit indices in covariance structure modeling : Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification

The following paper presents current thinking and research on fit indices for structural equation modelling. The
paper presents a selection of fit indices that are widely regarded as the most informative indices available to researchers.
As well as outlining each of these indices, guidelines are presented on their use. The paper also provides reporting
strategies of these indices and concludes with a discussion on the future of fit indices.

/pdf/structural-equation-modelling-guidelines-for-determining-muejvmc1az.pdf

Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit

"With its emphasis on practical and conceptual aspects, rather than mathematics or formulas, this accessible book has established itself as the go-to resource on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Detailed, worked-through examples drawn from psychology, management, and sociology studies illustrate the procedures, pitfalls, and extensions of CFA methodology. The text shows how to formulate, program, and interpret CFA models using popular latent variable software packages (LISREL, Mplus, EQS, SAS/CALIS); understand the similarities and differences between CFA and exploratory factor analysis (EFA); and report results from a CFA study. It is filled with useful advice and tables that outline the procedures. The companion website offers data and program syntax files for most of the research examples, as well as links to CFA-related resources. New to This Edition *Updated throughout to incorporate important developments in latent variable modeling. *Chapter on Bayesian CFA and multilevel measurement models. *Addresses new topics (with examples): exploratory structural equation modeling, bifactor analysis, measurement invariance evaluation with categorical indicators, and a new method for scaling latent variables. *Utilizes the latest versions of major latent variable software packages"--

/pdf/confirmatory-factor-analysis-for-applied-research-4crbcxiv74.pdf

Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research

Survey and longitudinal studies in the social and behavioral sciences generally contain missing data. Mean and covariance structure models play an important role in analyzing such data. Two promising methods for dealing with missing data are a direct maximum-likelihood and a two-stage approach based on the unstructured mean and covariance estimates obtained by the EM-algorithm. Typical assumptions under these two methods are ignorable nonresponse and normality of data. However, data sets in social and behavioral sciences are seldom normal, and experience with these procedures indicates that normal theory based methods for nonnormal data very often lead to incorrect model evaluations. By dropping the normal distribution assumption, we develop more accurate procedures for model inference. Based on the theory of generalized estimating equations, a way to obtain consistent standard errors of the two-stage estimates is given. The asymptotic efficiencies of different estimators are compared under various assump...

Three Likelihood-Based Methods For Mean and Covariance Structure Analysis With Nonnormal Missing Data

Structural equation modeling is a well-known technique for studying relationships among multivariate data. In practice, high dimensional nonnormal data with small to medium sample sizes are very common, and large sample theory, on which almost all modeling statistics are based, cannot be invoked for model evaluation with test statistics. The most natural method for nonnormal data, the asymptotically distribution free procedure, is not defined when the sample size is less than the number of nonduplicated elements in the sample covariance. Since normal theory maximum likelihood estimation remains defined for intermediate to small sample size, it may be invoked but with the probable consequence of distorted performance in model evaluation. This article studies the small sample behavior of several test statistics that are based on maximum likelihood estimator, but are designed to perform better with nonnormal data. We aim to identify statistics that work reasonably well for a range of small sample sizes and distribution conditions. Monte Carlo results indicate that Yuan and Bentler's recently proposed F-statistic performs satisfactorily.

/pdf/structural-equation-modeling-with-small-samples-test-444o36e3qz.pdf

Structural Equation Modeling with Small Samples: Test Statistics.

Nonnormality of univariate data has been extensively examined previously (Blanca et al., Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 9(2), 78-84, 2013; Miceeri, Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 156, 1989). However, less is known of the potential nonnormality of multivariate data although multivariate analysis is commonly used in psychological and educational research. Using univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis as measures of nonnormality, this study examined 1,567 univariate distriubtions and 254 multivariate distributions collected from authors of articles published in Psychological Science and the American Education Research Journal. We found that 74 % of univariate distributions and 68 % multivariate distributions deviated from normal distributions. In a simulation study using typical values of skewness and kurtosis that we collected, we found that the resulting type I error rates were 17 % in a t-test and 30 % in a factor analysis under some conditions. Hence, we argue that it is time to routinely report skewness and kurtosis along with other summary statistics such as means and variances. To facilitate future report of skewness and kurtosis, we provide a tutorial on how to compute univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis by SAS, SPSS, R and a newly developed Web application.

/pdf/univariate-and-multivariate-skewness-and-kurtosis-for-2s8u1fjqo3.pdf

Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation

Model evaluation is one of the most important aspects of structural equation modeling (SEM). Many model fit indices have been developed. It is not an exaggeration to say that nearly every publication using the SEM methodology has reported at least one fit index. Most fit indices are defined through test statistics. Studies and interpretation of fit indices commonly assume that the test statistics follow either a central chi-square distribution or a noncentral chi-square distribution. Because few statistics in practice follow a chi-square distribution, we study properties of the commonly used fit indices when dropping the chi-square distribution assumptions. The study identifies two sensible statistics for evaluating fit indices involving degrees of freedom. We also propose linearly approximating the distribution of a fit index/statistic by a known distribution or the distribution of the same fit index/statistic under a set of different conditions. The conditions include the sample size, the distribution of the data as well as the base-statistic. Results indicate that, for commonly used fit indices evaluated at sensible statistics, both the slope and the intercept in the linear relationship change substantially when conditions change. A fit index that changes the least might be due to an artificial factor. Thus, the value of a fit index is not just a measure of model fit but also of other uncontrollable factors. A discussion with conclusions is given on how to properly use fit indices.

https://www3.nd.edu/~kyuan/courses/sem/readpapers/Yuan-MBR2005.pdf

Fit Indices Versus Test Statistics

Even though data sets in psychology are seldom normal, the statistics used to evaluate covariance structure models are typically based on the assumption of multivariate normality. Consequently, many conclusions based on normal theory methods are suspect. In this paper, we develop test statistics that can be correctly applied to the normal theory maximum likelihood estimator. We propose three new asymptotically distribution-free (ADF) test statistics that technically must yield improved behaviour in samples of realistic size, and use Monte Carlo methods to study their actual finite sample behaviour. Results indicate that there exists an ADF test statistic that also performs quite well in finite sample situations. Our analysis shows that various forms of ADF test statistics are sensitive to model degrees of freedom rather than to model complexity. A new index is proposed for evaluating whether a rescaled statistic will be robust. Recommendations are given regarding the application of each test statistic.

Ke-Hai Yuan

Papers

Three Likelihood-Based Methods For Mean and Covariance Structure Analysis With Nonnormal Missing Data

Structural Equation Modeling with Small Samples: Test Statistics.

Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation

Fit Indices Versus Test Statistics

Normal theory based test statistics in structural equation modelling