The four reactions in the May 2005 issue of The Counseling Psychologist address several considerations regarding the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) in counseling psychology research, including its appropriateness for analyzing one’s data and testing one versus multiple theoretical models. In addition, points that are not mentioned in the author’s original article were also covered, such as evaluating the fit of one’s model, item parceling, and the generalizability of findings. These four reactions are discussed in the context of raising awareness among counseling psychology researchers of considerations associated with the use of SEM.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association. (2004). Summary report of journal operations, 2003. American Psychologist, 59, 471-472.
2.
Betz, N. E. (2005). Enhancing research productivity in counseling psychology: Reactions to three perspectives. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 358-366.
3.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
4.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
5.
Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6, 117-128.
6.
Gore-Felton, C. (2005). Understanding quantitative research in counseling psychology: An elusive endeavor in an increasingly diverse discipline. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 367-374.
7.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
8.
Kahn, J. H. (2005). Institutional research productivity, use of theory-driven research, and statistical application in counseling psychology: Examining the research base. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 340-348.
9.
Lee, D. (2005). Calls for multiple indices incorporating multiculturalism in content analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 349-357.
10.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman,K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.
11.
MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201-226.
12.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in over generalizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
13.
Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 269-298.
14.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82.
15.
Stephenson, M. T., & Holbert, R. L. (2003). A Monte Carlo simulation of observable versus latent variable structural equation modeling techniques. Communication Research, 30, 332-354.
