Muthén and Asparouhov introduced an approach for conducting Bayesian inference in the context of structural equation models that they termed Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM). In this article, we provide an overview of the BSEM technique, illustrate how this technique relates to confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis, and highlight several key problems with using the BSEM approach as it is currently advocated. Utilizing data from a large-scale study of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, we develop a modified approach for applying the BSEM technique in a manner that is more consistent with accepted principles of reflective measurement, factor analysis, and model selection. We devise a series of recommendations to guide future use of the BSEM technique to help ensure that mainstream use of this approach heralds the coming of a new day in measurement development rather than a false dawn.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB.2010. Bayesian analysis using Mplus: Technical implementation. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
4.
BagozziR. P.2007. On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: Comment of Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox (2007). Psychological Methods, 12: 229-237.
5.
BanduraA.1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84: 191-215.
6.
BollenK. A.1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
7.
BoxG. E.1979. Some problems of statistics in everyday life. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(365): 1-4.
8.
BoydN. G.VozikisG. S.1994. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18: 63-77.
9.
BrowneM. W.2000. Cross-validation methods. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44: 108-132.
10.
BrowneM. W.2001. An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36: 111-150.
11.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR.1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21: 230-258.
12.
BurnhamK. P.AndersonD. R.2004. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33: 261-304.
13.
BurtR. S.1976. Interpretational confounding in unobserved variables in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 5: 3-52.
14.
BusemeyerJ. R.WangY.-M.2000. Model comparisons and model selections based on generalization criterion methodology. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44: 171-189.
15.
ChenC. C.GreeneP. G.CrickA.1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 295-316.
16.
ComreyA. L.1988. Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56: 754-761.
CudeckR.HenlyS. J.1991. Model selection in covariance structures analysis and the “problem” of sample size: A clarification. Psychological Bulletin, 109: 512-519.
19.
CudeckR.O’DellL. L.1994. Applications of standard error estimates in unrestricted factor analysis: Significance tests for factor loadings and correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 115: 475-487.
20.
DunsonD. B.PalomoJ.BollenK.2005. Bayesian structural equation modeling. Technical report no. 2005-5, Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.
21.
EdwardsM. C.2010. A Markov chain Monte Carlo approach to confirmatory item factor analysis. Psychometrika, 75: 474-497.
22.
FongT. C.HoR. T.2013. Factor analyses of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: A Bayesian structural equation modeling approach. Quality of Life Research, 22: 2857-2863.
23.
GelmanA.2003. A Bayesian formulation of exploratory data analysis and goodness-of-fit testing. International Statistical Review, 71: 369-382.
24.
GerbingD. W.AndersonJ. C.1984. On the meaning of within-factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11: 572-580.
25.
GerbingD. W.AndersonJ. C.1988. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25: 186-192.
26.
GistM. E.1987. Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12: 472-485.
27.
GolayP.ReverteI.RossierJ.FavezN.LecerfT.2013. Further insights on the French WISC-IV factor structure through Bayesian structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 25: 496-508.
28.
GreenS. B.YangY.2009. Commentary on coefficient alpha: A cautionary tale. Psychometrika, 74: 121-135.
29.
GregoryP.2005. Bayesian logical data analysis for the physical sciences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GrewalR.CoteJ. A.BaumgartnerH.2004. Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, 23: 519-529.
31.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E.2010. Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
32.
HolzingerK. J.SwinefordF.1937. The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2: 41-54.
33.
HuL.BentlerP. M.1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6: 1-55.
34.
KaplanD.DepaoliS.2012. Bayesian structural equation modeling. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling: 650-673. New York: Guilford Press.
35.
KruschkeJ. K.AguinisH.JooH.2012. The time has come: Bayesian methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15: 722-752.
36.
LeeG.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A.2001. The relative appropriateness of eight measurement models for analyzing scores from tests composed of testlets. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61: 958-975.
37.
LeeS.-Y.2007. Structural equation modeling: A Bayesian approach. West Sussex, England: Wiley.
38.
LevyR.2011. Bayesian data-model fit assessment for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 18: 663-685.
39.
LittleT. D.2013. Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
40.
LittleT. D.LindenbergerU.NesselroadeJ. R.1999. On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4: 192-211.
41.
LittleT. D.RhemtullaM.GibsonK.SchoemannA. M.2013. Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18: 285-300.
MacCallumR. C.2003. Working with imperfect models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38: 113-139.
44.
MacCallumR. C.EdwardsM. C.CaiL.2012. Hopes and cautions in implementing Bayesian structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 17: 340-345.
45.
MacCallumR. C.RoznowskiM.MarC. M.ReithJ. V.1994. Alternative strategies for cross-validation of covariance structure models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29: 1-32.
46.
MacCallumR. C.RoznowskiM.NecowitzL. B.1992. Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111: 490-504.
47.
MacCallumR. C.TuckerL. R.1991. Representing sources of error in the common-factor model: Implications for theory and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 109: 502-511.
MarshH. W.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.MorinA. J.TrautweinU.2009. Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16: 439-476.
50.
McDonaldR. P.1999. Test theory: A unified treatment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51.
McDonaldR. P.2000. A basis for multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24: 99-114.
52.
McGeeJ. E.PetersonM.MuellerS. L.SequeiraJ. M.2009. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33: 965-988.
53.
MuthénB.AsparouhovT.2012a. Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17: 313-335.
54.
MuthénB.AsparouhovT.2012b. Rejoinder to MacCallum, Edwards, and Cai (2012) and Rindskopf (2012): Mastering a new method. Psychological Methods, 17: 346-353.
MyersN. D.AhnS.JinY.2013. Rotation to a partially specified target matrix in exploratory factor analysis: How many targets?Structural Equation Modeling, 20: 131-147.
58.
MyungI. J.2000. The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44: 190-204.
59.
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O.2007. Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14: 535-569.
PreacherK. J.MerkleE. C.2012. The problem of model selection uncertainty in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 17: 1-14.
62.
PreacherK. J.ZhangG.KimC.MelsG.2013. Choosing the optimal number of factors in exploratory factor analysis: A model selection perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48: 28-56.
63.
RafteryA. E.1995. Bayesian model selection in social research . Sociological Methodology, 25: 111-163.
64.
ReiseS. P.2012. The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47: 667-696.
65.
ReiseS. P.MorizotJ.HayesR. D.2007. The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16: 19-31.
RindskopfD.2012. Next steps in Bayesian structural equation models: Comments on, variations of, and extensions to Muthén and Asparouhov (2012). Psychological Methods, 17: 336-339.
68.
RönkköM.EvermannJ.2013. A critical examination of common beliefs about partial least squares path modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 16: 425-448.
69.
RubinD. B.1996. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91: 473-489.
70.
SassD. A.SchmittT. A.2010. A comparative investigation of rotation criteria within exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45: 73-103.
71.
SchwarzG.1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6: 461-464.
72.
ScloveS. L.1987. Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 52: 333-343.
73.
SmithG. T.McCarthyD. M.1995. Methodological considerations in the refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7: 300-308.
74.
SpearmanC.1904. The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15: 72-101.
75.
SpiegelhalterD. J.BestN. G.CarlinB. P.van der LindeA.2002. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 64: 583-639.
76.
SteigerJ. H.1990. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25: 173-180.
77.
StevensonH. H.RobertsM. J.GrousbeckH. I.1985. New business ventures and the entrepreneur. Burr Ridge, IL: Richard D Irwin.
78.
ThurstoneL. L.1947. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
79.
van de SchootR.KluytmansA.TummersL.LugtigP.HoxJ.MuthénB.2013. Facing off with Scylla and Charybdis: A comparison of scalar, partial, and the novel possibility of approximate measurement invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4:770. http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00770/full
80.
VriezeS. I.2012. Model selection and psychological theory: A discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Psychological Methods, 17: 228-243.
81.
WoodR.BanduraA.1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14: 361-384.
82.
YatesA.1987. Multivariate exploratory data analysis: A perspective on exploratory factor analysis. Albany: State University of New York Press.
ZucchiniW.2000. An introduction to model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44: 41-61.
85.
ZyphurM. J.OswaldF. L.2015. Bayesian estimation and inference: A user’s guide. Journal of Management, 41: 390-420.
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.
