Methods to handle ordered-categorical indicators in latent variable interactions have been developed, yet they have not been widely applied. This article compares the performance of two popular latent variable interaction modeling approaches in handling ordered-categorical indicators: unconstrained product indicator (UPI) and latent moderated structural equations (LMS). We conducted a simulation study across sample sizes, indicators’ distributions and category conditions. We also studied four strategies to create sets of product indicators for UPI. Results supported using a parceling strategy to create product indicators in the UPI approach or using the LMS approach when the categorical indicators are symmetrically distributed. We applied these models to study the interaction effect between third- to fifth-grade students’ social skills improvement and teacher–student closeness on their state English language arts test scores.
AlginaJ.MoulderB. C. (2001). A note on estimating the Jöreskog-Yang model for latent variable interaction using LISREL 8.3. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 40-52. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0801_3
2.
BabakusE.FergusonC. E.Jr.JöreskogK. G. (1987). The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 222-228.
3.
BandalosD. L. (2008). Is parceling really necessary? A comparison of results from item parceling and categorical variable methodology. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 211-240. doi:10.1080/10705510801922340
4.
BohrnstedtG. W.GoldbergerA. S. (1969). On the exact covariance of products of random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 64, 1439-1442. doi:10.1080/01621459.1969.10501069
5.
ChamH.ReshetnyakE.RosenfeldB.BreitbartW. (2017). Full information maximum likelihood estimation for latent variable interactions with incomplete indicators. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 12-30. doi:10.1080/00273171.2016.1245600
6.
ChamH.WestS. G.MaY.AikenL. S. (2012). Estimating latent variable interactions with nonnormal observed data: A comparison of four strategies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 840-876. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.732901
7.
CoendersG.Batista-FoguetJ. M.SarisW. E. (2008). Simple, efficient and distribution-free approach to interaction effects in complex structural equation models. Quality and Quantity, 42, 369-396. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9050-6
8.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
9.
DempsterA. P.LairdN. M.RubinD. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39, 1-38. doi:10.2307/2344877
10.
FoldnesN.HagtvetK. A. (2014). The choice of PIs in latent variable interaction models: Post hoc analyses. Psychological Methods, 19, 444-457. doi:10.1037/a0035728
11.
FoldnesN.OlssonU. H. (2016). A simple simulation technique for nonnormal data with prespecified skewness, kurtosis, and covariance matrix. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 207-219. doi:10.1080/00273171.2015.1133274
12.
GreshamF.ElliottS. N. (2008). Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) rating scales. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.
13.
GuoJ.NagengastB.MarshH. W.KelavaA.GaspardH.BrandtH.. . .BrissonB. (2016). Probing the unique contributions of self-concept, task values, and their interactions using multiple value facets and multiple academic outcomes. AERA Open, 2(1). doi:10.1177/2332858415626884
14.
HooglandJ. J.BoomsmaA. (1998). Robustness studies in covariance structure modeling: An overview and a meta-analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 26, 329-367. doi:10.1177/0049124198026003003
15.
JaccardJ.WanC. K. (1995). Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects between continuous predictors using multiple regression: Multiple indicator and structural equation strategies. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 348-357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.348
16.
JackmanM. G.-A.LeiteW. L.CochraneD. (2011). Estimating latent variable interactions with the unconstrained approach: A comparison of methods to form PIs for large, unequal numbers of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 274-288. doi:10.1080/10705511.2011.557342
17.
JenningsP. A.BrownJ. L.FrankJ. L.DoyleS.OhY.TanlerR.RasheedD.. . . GreenbergM. T. (2017). Impacts of the CARE for Teachers Program on teachers’ social and emotional competence and classroom interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 1010-1028. doi:10.1037/edu0000187
18.
JöreskogK. G.YangF. (1996). Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny-Judd model with interaction effects. In MarcoulidesG. A.SchumackerR. E. (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 57-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
KelavaA.WernerC. S.Schermelleh-EngelK.MoosbruggerH.ZapfD.MaY.. . .WestS. G. (2011). Advanced nonlinear structural equation modeling: Distribution-analytic LMS and QML estimators of interaction and quadratic effects. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 465-491. doi:10.1080/10705511.2011.582408
20.
KleinA. G.MoosbruggerH. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457-474. doi:10.1007/bf02296338
21.
KojadinovicI.YanJ. (2010). Modeling multivariate distributions with continuous margins using the copula R package. Journal of Statistical Software, 34(9), 1-20. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v34/i09/
22.
LeeS.-Y.SongX.-Y.CaiJ.-H. (2010). A Bayesian approach for nonlinear structural equation models with dichotomous variables using logit and probit links. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 280-302. doi:10.1080/10705511003659425
23.
LittleT. D.RhemtullaM.GibsonK.SchoemannA. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285-300. doi:10.1037/a0033266
24.
MarshH. W.WenZ.HauK.-T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275-300. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.9.3.275
25.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
MuthénB.KaplanD. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171-189. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00832.x
27.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2014). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.) Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
28.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
29.
PiantaR. C. (2001). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
30.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
31.
ReshetnyakE.ChamH. (2016, May). Estimating latent variable interactions with incomplete exogenous indicators via CART in MICE using unconstrained product indicator approach. Paper presented at 2016 Modern Modeling Methods (M3) Conference, Storrs, CT.
32.
RhemtullaM.Brosseau-LiardP.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
33.
RizopoulosD. (2006). ltm: An R package for latent variable modelling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(5), 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v17/i05/
34.
RizopoulosD.MoustakiI. (2008). Generalized latent variable models with nonlinear effects. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 415-438. doi:10.1348/000711007X213963
35.
RogersW. M.SchmittN. (2004). Parameter recovery and model fit using multidimensional composites: A comparison of four empirical parceling algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 379-412. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3903_1
36.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In von EyeA.CloggC. C. (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
Schermelleh-EngelK.KleinA. G.MoosbruggerH. (1998). Estimating nonlinear effects using a latent moderated structural equations approach. In SchumackerE.MarcoulidesG. A. (Eds.), Interaction and nonlinear effects in structural equation modeling (pp. 203-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
SongX. Y.LeeS. Y. (2005). Maximum likelihood analysis of nonlinear structural equation models with dichotomous variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 151-177. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4002_1
39.
WestS. G.AikenL. S.ChamH.LiuY. (2013). Multiple regression: The basics and beyond for clinical scientists. In ComerJ. S.KendallP. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of research strategies for clinical psychology (pp. 227-252). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40.
WuY.WenZ.MarshH. W.HauK.-T. (2013). A comparison of strategies for forming PIs for unequal numbers of items in structural equation models of latent interactions. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 551-567. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.824772
41.
YangC.NayS.HoyleR. H. (2010). Three strategies to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models: Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 122-142. doi:10.1177/0146621609338592
42.
YuanK.-H.BentlerP. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30, 165-200. doi:10.1111/0081-1750.00078
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
