This study investigates the incorporation of historical measurement information into structural equation models (SEM) with small samples to enhance the estimation of structural parameters. Given the availability of published factor analysis results with loading estimates and standard errors for popular scales, researchers may use this historical information as informative priors in Bayesian SEM (BSEM). We focus on estimating the correlation between two constructs using BSEM after generating data with significant bias in the Pearson correlation of their sum scores due to measurement error. Our findings indicate that incorporating historical information on measurement parameters as priors can improve the accuracy of correlation estimates, mainly when the true correlation is small—a common scenario in psychological research. Priors derived from meta-analytic estimates were especially effective, providing high accuracy and acceptable coverage. However, when the true correlation is large, weakly informative priors on all parameters yield the best results. These results suggest leveraging historical measurement information in BSEM can enhance structural parameter estimation.
BelgorodskiN.GreinerM.TolksdorfK.SchuellerK. (2017). RriskDistributions: Fitting distributions to given data or known quantiles [Computer software manual]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rriskDistributions (R package version 2.1.2).
2.
BenjaminiY.YekutieliD. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics, 29(4), 1165–1188. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013699998
3.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables (p. 514). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4.
BoomsmaA. (1985). Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in lisrel maximum likelihood estimation. Psychometrika, 50(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294248
5.
BoscoF. A.AguinisH.SinghK.FieldJ. G.PierceC. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038047
6.
CarpenterB.GelmanA.HoffmanM. D.LeeD.GoodrichB.BetancourtM.BrubakerM.GuoJ.LiP.RiddellA. (2017). Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software, 76(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01
ChenJ.GuoZ.ZhangL.PanJ. (2021). A partially confirmatory approach to scale development with the Bayesian lasso. Psychological Methods, 26, 210–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000293
9.
CheungM. W.-L. (2014). Fixed- and random-effects meta-analytic structural equation modeling: Examples and analyses in R. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0361-y
10.
CheungM. W.-L.ChanW. (2009). A two-stage approach to synthesizing covariance matrices in meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(1), 28–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510802561295
11.
ColeD. A.PreacherK. J. (2014). Manifest variable path analysis: Potentially serious and misleading consequences due to uncorrected measurement error. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033805
DuanY.YeK.SmithE. P. (2006). Evaluating water quality using power priors to incorporate historical information. Environmetrics, 17(1), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/env.752
FinchW. H. (2024). A comparison of methods for synthesizing results from previous research to obtain priors for Bayesian structural equation modeling. Psych, 6(1), 45–88. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych6010004
16.
FinchW. H.MillerJ. (2019). The use of incorrect informative priors in the estimation of MIMIC model parameters with small sample sizes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(4), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1553111
17.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Random effects models for effect sizes. In HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (Eds.), Statistical methods for meta-analysis (pp. 189–203). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-057065-5.50014-2
18.
HobbsB. P.CarlinB. P.MandrekarS. J.SargentD. J. (2011). Hierarchical commensurate and power prior models for adaptive incorporation of historical information in clinical trials. Biometrics, 67(3), 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01564.x
19.
HothornT.HornikK.ZeileisA. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674. https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933
20.
HoxJ. J. C. M.van de SchootR.MatthijsseS. (2012). How few countries will do? Comparative survey analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Survey Research Methods, 6(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2012.v6i2.5033
21.
HsiangT. C. (1975). A Bayesian view on ridge regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician), 24(4), 267–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/2987923
22.
IbrahimJ. G.ChenM.-H. (2000). Power prior distributions for regression models. Statistical Science, 15(1), 46–60.
23.
IbrahimJ. G.ChenM.-H.GwonY.ChenF. (2015). The power prior: Theory and applications. Statistics in Medicine, 34(28), 3724–3749. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6728
24.
JacobucciR.GrimmK. J. (2018). Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian regularization in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 639–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1410822
KaplanD.ChenJ.YavuzS.LyuW. (2023). Bayesian dynamic borrowing of historical information with applications to the analysis of large-scale assessments. Psychometrika, 88(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-022-09869-3
LedgerwoodA.ShroutP. E. (2011). The trade-off between accuracy and precision in latent variable models of mediation processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1174–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024776
29.
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(4), 653–686. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3904_4
30.
LemoineN. P. (2019). Moving beyond noninformative priors: Why and how to choose weakly informative priors in Bayesian analyses. Oikos, 128(7), 912–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05985
31.
LewandowskiD.KurowickaD.JoeH. (2009). Generating random correlation matrices based on vines and extended onion method. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 100(9), 1989–2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMVA.2009.04.008
32.
LovakovA.AgadullinaE. R. (2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2752
33.
MarcoulidesK. M. (2017). A Bayesian synthesis approach to data fusion using augmented data-dependent priors (Tech. Rep.). Arizona State University. https://keep.lib.asu.edu/items/155625
34.
Maydeu-OlivaresA. (2017). Assessing the size of model misfit in structural equation models. Psychometrika, 82(3), 533–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9552-7
35.
McElreathR. (2020). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan (p. 594). CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.
NevittJ.HancockG. R. (2004). Evaluating small sample approaches for model test statistics in structural equation modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 439–478. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3903_3
PanH.YuanY.XiaJ. (2017). A calibrated power prior approach to borrow information from historical data with application to biosimilar clinical trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 66(5), 979–996. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12204
43.
RhemtullaM.van BorkR.BorsboomD. (2020). Worse than measurement error: Consequences of inappropriate latent variable measurement models. Psychological Methods, 25(1), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000220
44.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
45.
RosseelY. (2020). Small sample solutions for structural equation modeling. In van de SchootR.MiocevićM. (Eds.), Small sample size solutions: A guide for applied researchers and practitioners (pp. 226–269). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429273872
SavaleiV. (2019). A comparison of several approaches for controlling measurement error in small samples. Psychological Methods, 24(3), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000181
48.
SavaleiV.BraceJ. C.FouladiR. T. (2024). We need to change how we compute RMSEA for nested model comparisons in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 29(3), 480–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000537
49.
ScheinesR.HoijtinkH.BoomsmaA. (1999). Bayesian estimation and testing of structural equation models. Psychometrika, 64(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294318
50.
ShiY.LiW.LiuG. F. (2023). A novel power prior approach for borrowing historical control data in clinical trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 32(3), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802221146309
51.
SmidS. C.McNeishD.MiočevićM.van de SchootR. (2020). Bayesian versus frequentist estimation for structural equation models in small sample contexts: A systematic review. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 131–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1577140
52.
SmidS. C.RosseelY. (2020). SEM with small samples: Two-step modeling and factor score regression versus Bayesian estimation with informative priors. In van de SchootR.MiocevićM. (Eds.), Small sample size solutions: A guide for applied researchers and practitioners (pp. 239–254). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429273872
53.
SmidS. C.WinterS. D. (2020). Dangers of the defaults: A tutorial on the impact of default priors when using Bayesian SEM with small samples. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 611963. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.611963
54.
UanhoroJ. O. (2023). Minorbsem: An R package for structural equation models that account for the influence of minor factors. Journal of Open Source Software, 8(86), 5292. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05292
55.
UanhoroJ. O. (2024). Modeling misspecification as a parameter in Bayesian structural equation models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84(2), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231165306
56.
UlitzschE.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA. (2023). Alleviating estimation problems in small sample structural equation modeling—A comparison of constrained maximum likelihood, Bayesian estimation, and fixed reliability approaches. Psychological Methods, 28(3), 527–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000435
57.
VehtariA.GelmanA.SimpsonD.CarpenterB.BürknerP.-C. (2020). Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved R for assessing convergence of MCMC. Bayesian Analysis, 16(2), 667–718. https://doi.org/10.1214/20-BA1221
58.
ViechtbauerW. (2005). Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(3), 261–293. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030003261
59.
VieleK.BerryS.NeuenschwanderB.AmzalB.ChenF.EnasN.HobbsB.IbrahimJ. G.KinnersleyN.LindborgS.MicallefS.RoychoudhuryS.ThompsonL. (2014). Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 13(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.1589
60.
WaltersR. W.HoffmanL.TemplinJ. (2018). The power to detect and predict individual differences in intra-individual variability using the mixed-effects location-scale model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(3), 360–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1449628
61.
WestfallJ.YarkoniT. (2016). Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PLoS One, 11(3), e0152719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152719
62.
WoodS. N. (2003). Thin plate regression splines. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 65(1), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00374
63.
WoodS. N. (2017). Generalized additive models: An introduction with R (2nd ed., p. 476). CRC Press.
64.
WuH.BrowneM. W. (2015). Quantifying adventitious error in a covariance structure as a random effect. Psychometrika, 80(3), 571–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9451-3
