In this study, three approaches commonly used by communication scientists to specify structural relationships using full-information maximum likelihood structural equation modeling are investigated. Specifically, a simulation study using Monte Carlo techniques was conducted to compare the structural paths generated by each of the three structural equation model types. Two of the three approaches utilized forms of latent variable modeling, and the third approach employed observed variables only. Of the three, the observed variable approach produced the most conservative structural path coefficients, whereas the hybrid latent variable approach generated the least attenuated coefficients. The appropriateness of each technique in modeling structural relationships is discussed and an argument is made for greater use of latent variable structural equation modeling in the field of communication.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 35-67.
2.
Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 139-161.
3.
Bedeian, A. G., Day, D. V., & Kelloway, E. K. (1997). Correcting for measurement error attenuation in structural equation models: Some important reminders. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 785-799.
4.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 1289-1298.
5.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
6.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.
7.
Blalock, H. M., Jr. (Ed.). (1971). Causal models in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine.
8.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
9.
Bollen, K. A., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305-314.
10.
Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1996). Using your emotions: Improving the measurement of affective orientation. Communication Research Reports, 13, 157-163.
11.
Breckler, S. J. (1990). Applications of covariance structure modeling in psychology: Cause for concern? Psychological Bulletin, 107, 260-273.
12.
Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotic distribution free methods in analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62-83.
13.
Carmines, E. G. (1986). The analysis of covariance structure models. In W. D. Berry & M. L. Beck (Eds.), New tools for social scientists: Advances and applications in research methods (pp. 23-55). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Chaffee, S., & Schleuder, J. (1986). Measurement and effects of attention to media news. Human Communication Research, 13, 76-107.
15.
Chou, C. P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 37-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression / correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
18.
Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317-327.
19.
Cudeck, R., du Toit, S., & Sörbom, D. (2001). Structural equation modeling: Present and future. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software.
20.
Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56-83.
21.
Finch, J. H., Macmillan, F. E., & Simpson, G. S. (2002). On the diffusion of probabilistic investment appraisal and decision-making procedures in the UK's upstream oil and gas industry. Research Policy, 31, 969-988.
22.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 40-65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
Godbold, L. C., & Pfau, M. (2000). Conferring resistance to peer pressure among adolescents: Using inoculation theory to discourage alcohol use. Communication Research, 27, 411-437.
24.
Hackman, M. Z., Ellis, K., Johnson, C. E., & Staley, C. (1999). Self-construal orientation: Validation of an instrument and a study of the relationship to leadership communication style. Communication Quarterly, 47, 183-195.
25.
Holbert, R. L., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2003). Political implications of primetime drama and sitcom use: Genres of representation and opinions concerning women's rights. Journal of Communication, 53, 45-60.
26.
Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28, 531-551.
27.
Hoyle, R. H. (1991). Evaluating measurement models in clinical research: Covariance structure analysis of latent variable models of self-conception. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 59, 67-76.
28.
Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). Sample size, reliability, and tests of statistical mediation. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 195-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: A conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 429-440.
31.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
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.
33.
Hunter, J. E., & Hamilton, M. A. (1995). PATH: A program in BASICA. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
34.
Hurley, W. J., & Lior, D. U. (2002). Combining expert judgment: On the performance of trimmed mean vote aggregation procedures in the presence of strategic voting. European Journal of Operational Research, 140, 142-147.
35.
Jackson, D. L. (2001). Sample size and number of parameter estimates in maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis: A Monte Carlo investigation. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 205-223.
36.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1970). A general method for analysis of covariance structures. Biometrika, 57, 239-251.
37.
Jöreskog K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109-133.
38.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1973). A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system. In A. S. Goldberger & O. D. Duncan (Eds.), Structural equation models in the social sciences (pp. 85-112). New York: Seminar Press.
39.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.
40.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
42.
Koolstra, C. M., & Van der Voort, T. H. A. (1996). Longitudinal effects of television on children's leisure-time reading: A test of three explanatory models. Human Communication Research, 23, 4-35.
43.
Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
45.
MacCallum, R. C. (1995). Model specification: Procedures, strategies, and related issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 16-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201-226.
47.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
48.
McLeod, J. M., Daily, K., Guo, Z., Eveland, W. P., Jr., Bayer, J., Yang, S., et al. (1996). Community integration, local media use, and democratic processes. Communication Research, 23, 179-209.
49.
McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315-336.
50.
McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., Moy, P., Horowitz, E. M., Holbert, R. L., Zhang, W., et al. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26, 743-774.
51.
McLeod, J., Sotirovic, M., & Holbert, R. L. (1998). Values as sociotropic judgments influencing communication patterns. Communication Research, 25, 453-485.
52.
McPhee, R. D., & Babrow, A. (1987). Causal modeling in communication research: Use, disuse, and misuse. Communication Monographs, 54, 344-366.
53.
Miller, M. B. (1995). Coefficient alpha: A basic introduction from the perspective of classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 255-273.
54.
Mooney, C. Z. (1997). Monte Carlo simulation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1996). The correction for attenuation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 63-75.
56.
Novick, M. R., & Lewis, C. (1967). Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements. Psychometrika, 32, 1-13.
57.
Oczkowski, E. (2002). Discriminating between measurement scales using nonnested tests and 2SLS: Monte Carlo evidence. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 103-125.
58.
Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Chen, F. (2001). Monte Carlo experiments: Design and implementation. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 287-312.
59.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
60.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A method for comparing completely standardized solutions in multiple groups. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 292-308.
61.
Robert, C. P., & Casella, G. (1999). Monte Carlo statistical methods. New York: Springer.
62.
Rubenstein, R. Y. (1981). Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. New York: John Wiley.
63.
Rubio, D. M., & Gillespie, D. F. (1995). Problems with error in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 367-378.
64.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996). Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1, 199-223.
65.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (1998). Media attentiveness and political efficacy: A three-year panel study among East and West Germans. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10, 195-210.
66.
Smith, V. K. (1973). Monte Carlo methods: Their role for econometrics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
67.
Wick, C. D., Siepmann, J. I., & Schure, M. R. (2002). Molecular simulation of concurrent gas-liquid interfacial adsorption and partitioning in gas-liquid chromatography. Analytical Chemistry, 74, 3518-3524.
68.
Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agriculture Research, 20, 557-585.
69.
Wright, S. (1934). The method of path coefficients. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 5, 161-215.
