Structural equation modelling (SEM) is a comprehensive and flexible statistical technique for testing complex relationships between variables, including both observed variables and latent variables (constructs or factors), with multiple pathways. In the past two decades, SEM has quickly pervaded in various research fields, such as psychology, sociology, education, economics, etc. This study provides a brief non-mathematical introduction to SEM for educational researchers who are interested in SEM but do not have advanced statistical backgrounds. This study presents the basic concepts of SEM, describes the steps of SEM implementation and discusses some issues that are often encountered in SEM applications. Examples of measurement model (confirmatory factor analysis, CFA) and general structural equation model are demonstrated, using real educational research data. Computer program Mplus was applied for modelling; the programming syntax and selected output for the example models are included.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArbuckleJ. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In MarcoulidesG. A.SchumackerR. E. (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
2.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB.2010. Plausible values for latent variables using Mplus (Technical Report). Retrieved fromwww.statmodel.com
3.
BandalosD. L.FinneyS. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In MarcoulidesG. A.SchumakerR. E. (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BentlerP. M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
5.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
6.
BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
7.
BollenK. A.StineR. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 205–229. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002004
8.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
BrowneT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
10.
ChenF. F.WestS. G.SousaK. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
11.
FinkbeinerC. (1979). Estimation for the multiple factor model when data are missing. Psychometrika, 44, 409–420. doi:10.1007/BF02296204
12.
FordJ.MacCallumR.TaitM. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314. doi:10.1111/peps.1986.39.issue-2
13.
HaydukL. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and advances. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
14.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
15.
JöreskogK. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183–202. doi:10.1007/BF02289343
16.
JöreskogK. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109–133. doi:10.1007/BF02291393
17.
JöreskogK. G. (1973). A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system. In GoldbergerA. S.DuncanO. D. (Eds.), Structural equation models in the social sciences (pp. 85–112). New York, NY: Seminar Press.
18.
JöreskogK. G.SörbomD. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationship by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago, IL: National Educational Resources.
19.
KimJ.MuellerC. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Structural methods and practical issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
20.
KishtonJ. M.WidamanK. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757–765. doi:10.1177/0013164494054003022
21.
KlineR. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23.
LeeS.-Y.SongX.-Y. (2004). Evaluation of the Bayesian and maximum likelihood approaches in analyzing structural equation models with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 653–686. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3904_4
24.
LentR. W.BrownS. D.GoreP. A. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 307–315. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.44.3.307
25.
LittleR. J.RubinD. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
26.
LopezD. F.LittleT. D. (1996). Children’s actioncontrol beliefs and emotional regulation in the social domain. Developmental Psychology, 32, 299–312. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.299
27.
MacCallumR. C.AustinJ. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201
28.
MacCallumR. C.RoznowskiM.NecowitzL. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490–504. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490
29.
MarshH. W. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1, 5–34. doi:10.1080/10705519409539960
30.
MarshH. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810–819. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.810
31.
MarshH. W.HauK. T. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis: Strategies for small sample sizes. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample size (pp. 251–306). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
MislevyR. J. (1993). Should ‘multiple imputations’ be treated as ‘multiple indicators’?Psychometrika, 58(1), 79–85. doi:10.1007/BF02294472
MuthénB.AsparouhovT. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313–335. doi:10.1037/a0026802
35.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
36.
NunnallyJ. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
37.
NunnallyJ. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
38.
PatrickC. J.HicksB. M.NicholP. E.KruegerR. F. (2007). A bifactor approach to modeling the structure of the psychopathy checklist-revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 118–141. doi:10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.118
39.
PomplunM. (2007). A bifactor analysis for a mode-of-administration effect. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 137–152. doi:10.1080/08957340701301264
40.
RafteryA. E. (1996). Bayesian model selection in social research (with discussion). In MarsdenP. V. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol. 25, pp. 111–163). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
41.
RaykovT. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35, 299–331. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80041-8
42.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Abingdon: Routledge.
43.
RhemtullaM.Brosseau-LiardP. É.SavaleiV. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354–373. doi:10.1037/a0029315
44.
RousseeuwP. J.Van ZomerenB. C. (1990). Unmasking multivariate outliers and leverage points. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 633–639. doi:10.1080/01621459.1990.10474920
45.
RubinD. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Survey. New York, NY: Wiley.
46.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for statistics in covariance structure analysis. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Statistics Series #2.
47.
ScloveS. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 52, 333–343. doi:10.1007/BF02294360
48.
SobelM. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. doi:10.2307/270723
49.
SörbomD. (1989). Model modification. Psychometrika, 54, 371–384. doi:10.1007/BF02294623
50.
SteigerJ. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 893–898. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017
51.
TomásJ. M.OliverA. (1999). Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale: Two factors or method effects. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 84–98. doi:10.1080/10705519909540120
52.
WangJ.KellyB. C.BoothB. M.FalckR. S.LeukefeldC.CarlsonR. G. (2010). Examining factorial structure and measurement invariance of the brief symptom inventory (BSI)-18 among drug users. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 23–29. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.08.003
53.
WangJ.SiegalH. A.FalckR. S.CarlsonR. G. (2001). Factorial structure of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale among crack-cocaine drug users. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 275–286. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0802_6
54.
WangJ.WangX. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. New York, NY: John Wiley.
55.
YuC. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.
