CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6,604Psychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling: Fourth Edition

Open access
Schumacker, Randall E., Lomax, Richard G.·2015·Routledge eBooks
DOI 10.4324/9781315749105
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Noted for its crystal clear explanations, this book is considered the most comprehensive introductory text to structural equation modeling (SEM). Noted for its thorough review of basic concepts and a wide variety of models, this book better prepares readers to apply SEM to a variety of research questions. Programming details and the use of algebra are kept to a minimum to help readers easily grasp the concepts so they can conduct their own analysis and critique related research. Featuring a greater emphasis on statistical power and model validation than other texts, each chapter features key concepts, examples from various disciplines, tables and figures, a summary, and exercises. Highlights of the extensively revised 4th edition include: -Uses different SEM software (not just Lisrel) including Amos, EQS, LISREL, Mplus, and R to demonstrate applications. -Detailed introduction to the statistical methods related to SEM including correlation, regression, and factor analysis to maximize understanding (Chs. 1 – 6). -The 5 step approach to modeling data (specification, identification, estimation, testing, and modification) is now covered in more detail and prior to the modeling chapters to provide a more coherent view of how to create models and interpret results (ch. 7). -More discussion of hypothesis testing, power, sampling, effect sizes, and model fit, critical topics for beginning modelers (ch. 7). - Each model chapter now focuses on one technique to enhance understanding by providing more description, assumptions, and interpretation of results, and an exercise related to analysis and output (Chs. 8 -15). -The use of SPSS AMOS diagrams to describe the theoretical models. -The key features of each of the software packages (Ch. 1). -Guidelines for reporting SEM research (Ch. 16). -www.routledge.com/9781138811935 which provides access to data sets that can be used with any program, links to other SEM examples, related readings, and journal articles, and more. Reorganized, the new edition begins with a more detailed introduction to SEM including the various software packages available, followed by chapters on data entry and editing, and correlation which is critical to understanding how missing data, non-normality, measurement, and restriction of range in scores affects SEM analysis. Multiple regression, path, and factor models are then reviewed and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis is introduced. These chapters demonstrate how observed variables share variance in defining a latent variables and introduce how measurement error can be removed from observed variables. Chapter 7 details the 5 SEM modeling steps including model specification, identification, estimation, testing, and modification along with a discussion of hypothesis testing and the related issues of power, and sample and effect sizes.Chapters 8 to 15 provide comprehensive introductions to different SEM models including Multiple Group, Second-Order CFA, Dynamic Factor, Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause, Mixed Variable and Mixture, Multi-Level, Latent Growth, and SEM Interaction Models. Each of the 5 SEM modeling steps is explained for each model along with an application. Chapter exercises provide practice with and enhance understanding of the analysis of each model. The book concludes with a review of SEM guidelines for reporting research. Designed for introductory graduate courses in structural equation modeling, factor analysis, advanced, multivariate, or applied statistics, quantitative techniques, or statistics II taught in psychology, education, business, and the social and healthcare sciences, this practical book also appeals to researchers in these disciplines. Prerequisites include an introduction to intermediate statistics that covers correlation and regression principles.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9781315749105

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 290

  1. Anderson, t. W., & rubin, h. (1956). statistical inference in factor analysis. In J. neyman (ed.), Proceedings of the third Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability (Vol. V, pp. 111-150). berkeley: University of California Press.
  2. blalock, h. M., Jr. (ed.). (1972). Causal models in the social sciences. london: Macmillan.
  3. Cole, D. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Manifest variable path analysis: Potentially serious and misleading consequences due to uncorrected measurement error. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 300-315.
  4. Cudeck, r., Du toit, s., & sörbom, D. (Eds.). (2001). Structural equation modeling: Present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog. lincolnwood, Il: scientific software International.
  5. Duncan, o. D. (1966). Path analysis: sociological examples. The American Journal of Sociology, 72(1), 1-16.
  6. hershberger, s. l. (2003). the growth of structural equation modeling: 1994-2001. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 35-46.
  7. 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.
  8. Keesling, J. W. (1972). Maximum likelihood approaches to causal flow analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Chicago: university of Chicago.
  9. lawley, D. n. (1958). estimation in factor analysis under various initial assumptions. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 11, 1-12.
  10. Matsueda, r. l. (2012). Key advances in structural equation modeling. In r. h. hoyle (ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 3-16). new York: guilford Press.
  11. Pearson, e. s. (1938). Karl Pearson. An appreciation of some aspects of his life and work. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
  12. rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An r package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
  13. schumacker, r. e. (2026). Meta-analysis using structural equation modeling: A practical guide with LISREL, Mplus, and R. new York, nY: guilford Press.
  14. spearman, C. (1904). the proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72-101.
  15. Wiley, D. e. (1973). The identification problem for structural equation models with unmeasured variables. In A. s. goldberger & o. D. Duncan (eds.), Structural equation models in the social sciences (pp. 69-83). new York: seminar.
  16. Wold, h. o. A. (1954). Causality and econometrics. Econometrica, 22(2), 162-177.
  17. Wright, s. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557-585.
  18. Wright, s. (1934). the method of path coefficients. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 5, 161-215.
  19. Anderson, T. W., & Rubin, H. (1956). Statistical inference in factor analysis. In J. Neyman (Ed.), Proceedings of the third Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability (Vol. V, pp. 111-150). Berkeley: University of California Press.
  20. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (Ed.). (1972). Causal models in the social sciences. London: Macmillan.
  21. Cole, D. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Manifest variable path analysis: Potentially serious and misleading consequences due to uncorrected measurement error. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 300-315.
  22. Cudeck, R., Du Toit, S., & Sörbom, D. (Eds.). (2001). Structural equation modeling: Present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
  23. Duncan, O. D. (1966). Path analysis: Sociological examples. The American Journal of Sociology, 72(1), 1-16.
  24. Hershberger, S. L. (2003). The growth of structural equation modeling: 1994-2001. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 35-46.
  25. 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.
  26. Keesling, J. W. (1972). Maximum likelihood approaches to causal flow analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Chicago: University of Chicago.
  27. Lawley, D. N. (1958). Estimation in factor analysis under various initial assumptions. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 11, 1-12.
  28. Matsueda, R. L. (2012). Key advances in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 3-16). New York: Guilford Press.
  29. Pearson, E. S. (1938). Karl Pearson. An appreciation of some aspects of his life and work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
  31. Schumacker, R. E. (2026). Meta-analysis using structural equation modeling: A practical guide with LISREL, Mplus, and R. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  32. Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72-101.
  33. Wiley, D. E. (1973). The identification problem for structural equation models with unmeasured variables. In A. S. Goldberger & O. D. Duncan (Eds.), Structural equation models in the social sciences (pp. 69-83). New York: Seminar.
  34. Wold, H. O. A. (1954). Causality and econometrics. Econometrica, 22(2), 162-177.
  35. Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557-585.
  36. Wright, S. (1934). The method of path coefficients. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 5, 161-215.
  37. Bandalos, D. L. (2014). Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(1), 102-116.
  38. Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least square estimation in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 186-203.
  39. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
  40. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
  41. Bollen, K. A. (1986). Sample size and Bentler and Bonnett's nonnormed fit index. Psychometrika, 51(3), 375-377.
  42. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
  43. Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256-259.
  44. Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62-83.
  45. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 132-162).
  46. Bryant, F. B., & Satorra, A. (2012). Principles and practice of scaled difference chi-square testing. Structural Equation Modeling, 19(3), 372-398.
  47. Chen, F., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., & Kirby, J. B. (2001). Improper solutions in structural equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(4), 468-508.
  48. Chou, C.-P., & Bentler, P. M. (1990). Model modification in covariance structure modeling: A comparison among likelihood ratio, Lagrange multiplier, and Wald tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 115-136.
  49. Chou, C.-P., & Bentler, P. M. (1993). Invariant standardized estimated parameter change for model modification in covariance structure analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28(1), 97-110.
  50. Chou, C.-P., Bentler, P. M., & Satorra, A. (1991). Scaled test statistics and robust standard errors for non- normal data in covariance structure analysis: A Monte Carlo study. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44(2), 347-357.
  51. Cudeck, R., & Browne, M. W. (1983). Cross-validation of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(2), 147-167.
  52. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16-29.
  53. DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(3), 327-346.
  54. Dolan, C. V. (1994). Factor analysis of variables with 2, 3, 5 and 7 response categories: A comparison of categorical variable estimators using simulated data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47(2), 309-326.
  55. Eliason, S. R. (1993). Maximum likelihood estimation: Logic and practice. Sage Publications, Inc.
  56. Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (1995). Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(3), 343-367.
  57. Ferron, J. M., & Hess, M. R. (2007). Estimation in SEM: A concrete example. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32(1), 110-120.
  58. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  59. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466-491.
  60. Forero, C. G., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2009). Estimation of IRT graded response models: Limited versus full information methods. Psychological Methods, 14(3), 275-299.
  61. Gagné, P., & Hancock, G. R. (2006). Measurement model quality, sample size, and solution propriety in confirmatory factor models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(1), 65-83.
  62. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1987). Improper solutions in the analysis of covariance structures: Their interpretability and a comparison of alternate respecifications. Psychometrika, 52(1), 99-111.
  63. Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2001). Testing parameters in structural equation modeling: Every "one" matters. Psychological Methods, 6(3), 258-269.
  64. 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.
  65. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453.
  66. 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), 1-55.
  67. Hu, L., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351-362.
  68. Hutchinson, S. R. (1993). Univariate and multivariate specification search indices in covariance structure modeling. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 171-181.
  69. Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6-23.
  70. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI user's guide (3rd ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
  71. Kaplan, D. (1988). The impact of specification error on the estimation, testing, and improvement of structural equation models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(1), 69-86.
  72. Kaplan, D. (1989). Model modification in covariance structure analysis: Application of the expected parameter change statistic. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24(3), 285-305.
  73. Kenny, D. A., & Milan, S. (2012). Identification: A nontechnical discussion of a technical issue. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 145-163). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  74. Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  75. MacCallum, R. C. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 107-120.
  76. MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490-504.
  77. Marcoulides, G. A., & Drezner, Z. (2001). Specification searches in structural equation modeling with a genetic algorithm. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 247-268).
  78. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 315-353).
  79. 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.
  80. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341.
  81. McDonald, R. P. (1989). An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality. Journal of Classification, 6, 97-103.
  82. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Alstine, J. V., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness- of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.
  83. Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38(2), 171-189.
  84. Muthén, B., & Kaplan D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45(1), 19-30.
  85. Olsson, U. H., Foss, T., Troye, S. V., & Howell, R. D. (2000). The performance of ML, GLS, and WLS estimation in structural equation modeling under conditions of misspecification and nonnormality. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(4), 557-595.
  86. Palov, G., Maydeu-Olivares, & Shi, D. (2021). Using the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) to assess exact fit in structural equation models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(1), 110-130.
  87. Preacher, K. J., & Yaremych, H. E. (2023). Model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (2nd ed., pp. 206-222). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  88. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. (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(3), 354-373.
  89. Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & Sörbom, D. (1987). The detection and correction of specification errors in structural equation models. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 105-129). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  90. Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16(4), 561-582.
  91. Satorra, A. (1989). Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach. Psychometrika, 54(1), 131-151.
  92. Satorra, A. (1993). Multi-sample analysis of moment structures: Asymptotic validity of inferences based on second-order moments. In K. Haagen, D. J. Bartholomew, & M. Deistler (Eds.), Statistical modeling and latent variables (pp. 283-298). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  93. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections for test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. Von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  94. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461-464.
  95. Sclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 52(3), 333-343.
  96. Silvia, E. M., & MacCallum, R. C. (1988). Some factors affecting the success of specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(3), 297-326.
  97. Sörbom, D. (1989). Model modification. Psychometrika, 54(3), 371-384.
  98. West, S. G., Wu, W., McNeish, D., & Savord, A. (2023). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (2nd ed., pp. 184-205). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  99. Whittaker, T. A. (2012). Using the modification index and standardized expected parameter change for model modification. Journal of Experimental Education, 80(1), 26-44.
  100. Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). Parsimony-based fit indices of multiple indicator models: Do they work? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1, 161-189.
  101. Wothke, W. (1993). Nonpositive definite matrices in structural modeling. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 256-293).
  102. Yuan, K.-H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(1), 115-148.
  103. Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P. M. (1997). Mean and covariance structure analysis: Theoretical and practical improvements. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92, 767-774.
  104. Data Complexity Anderson, N. H. (1961). Scales and statistics: Parametric and non-parametric. Psychological Bulletin, 58, 305-316.
  105. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2011) Correlation in restricted ranges of data. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 342, d556.
  106. Davey, A., & Savla, J. (2009). Statistical power analysis with missing data: A structural equation modeling approach. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  107. Enders, C. K. (2013). Analyzing structural equation models with missing data. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 493-519).
  108. Ho, K., & Naugher, J. R. (2000). Outliers lie: An illustrative example of identifying outliers and applying robust methods. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 26(2), 2-6.
  109. Osborne, J. W. (2010). Improving your data transformations: Applying the Box-Cox transformation. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 15(12), 1-9.
  110. Peng, C.-Y. J., Harwell, M., Liou, S.-M., & Ehman, L. H. (2007). Advances in missing data methods and implications for educational research. In S. S. Sawilowsky (Ed.), Real data analysis. Charlotte: Information Age.
  111. Peterson, R. A. (2019). Ordered quantile normalization: A semiparametric transformation built for the cross- validation era. Journal of Applied Statistics, 46(14), 2312-2327.
  112. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (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(3), 354-373.
  113. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63(2), 581-592.
  114. Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete data. Chapman & Hall: CRC Press.
  115. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  116. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Sage Publications.
  117. Yeo, I. K., & Johnson, R. A. (2000). A new family of power transformations to improve normality or symmetry. Biometrika, 87(4), 954-959.
  118. Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Robust mean and covariance structure analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 51(1), 63-88.
  119. Yuan, K.-H., & Zhong, X. (2008). Outliers, leverage observations, and influential cases in factor analysis: Using robust procedures to minimize their effect. Sociological Methodology, 38(1), 329-368.
  120. Zhong, X., & Yuan, K.-H. (2011). Bias and efficiency in structural equation modeling: Maximum likelihood versus robust methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56(2), 229-265.
  121. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78-117.
  122. Burdenski, T. (2000). Evaluating univariate, bivariate, and multivariate normality using graphical and statistical procedures. Multiple Linear Regression, 26(2), 15-28.
  123. Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
  124. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430-457.
  125. Ho, K., & Naugher, J. R. (2000). Outlier lies: An illustrative example of identifying outliers and appling robust models. Multiple Linear Regression, 26(2), 1-6.
  126. Wickham, R. J. (2019). Secondary analysis research. Journal of Advanced Practical Oncology, 10(4), 395-400.
  127. Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Carter, T. M. (1971). Robustness in regression analysis. In H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 118-146). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
  128. Browne, M. W. (1982). Covariance structures. In D. M. Hawkins (Ed.), Topics in applied multivariate analysis (pp. 72-141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  129. Chatterjee, S., & Yilmaz, M. (1992). A review of regression diagnostics for behavioral research. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 209-227.
  130. Cleary, T. A. (1969). Error of measurement and the power of a statistical test. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 22, 49-55.
  131. Cochran, W. G. (1970). Some effects of errors of measurement on multiple correlation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65, 22-34.
  132. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  133. Darlington, R. B. (1968). Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 161-182.
  134. Ferguson, G. A., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  135. Fuller, W. A. (1987). Measurement error models. New York: Wiley.
  136. Fuller, W. A., & Hidiroglou, M. A. (1978). Regression estimates after correcting for attenuation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 99-104.
  137. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  138. Ho, K., & Naugher, J. R. (2000). Outliers lie: An illustrative example of identifying outliers and applying robust methods. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 26(2), 2-6.
  139. Huber, P. J. (1981). Robust statistics. New York: Wiley.
  140. Huberty, C. J. (1989). Problems with stepwise methods -Better alternatives. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science methodology (Vol. 1, pp. 43-70). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
  141. Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (2nd ed.).
  142. Lomax, R. G., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2012). An introduction to statistical concepts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Press (Taylor & Francis Group).
  143. Lyons, M. (1971). Techniques for using ordinal measures in regression and path analysis. In H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 147-171). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
  144. Maassen, G. H., & Bakker, A. B. (2001). Suppressor variables in path models: Definitions and interpretations. Sociological Methods & Research, 30(2), 241-270.
  145. Pearson, K. (1896). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. Part 3. Regression, heredity and panmixia. Philosophical Transactions, A, 187, 253-318.
  146. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  147. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.
  148. Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2013). Measurement, design, and analysis (1st ed.). Taylor and Francis.
  149. Rousseeuw, P. J., & Leroy, A. M. (1987). Robust regression and outlier detection. New York: Wiley.
  150. Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72-101.
  151. Staudte, R. G., & Sheather, S. J. (1990). Robust estimation and testing. New York: Wiley.
  152. Subkoviak, M. J., & Levin, J. R. (1977). Fallibility of measurement and the power of a statistical test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 47-52.
  153. Tankard, J. W., Jr. (1984). The statistical pioneers. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
  154. Werts, C. E., Rock, D. A., Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1976). Comparison of correlations, variances, covariances, and regression weights with or without measurement error. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1007-1013.
  155. Zuccaro, C. (1992). Mallows Cp statistic and model selection in multiple linear regression. Journal of the Market Research Society, 34, 163-172.
  156. Allison, P. D. (1995). The impact of random predictors on comparison of coefficients between models: Comment on Clogg, Petkova, and Haritou. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1294-1305.
  157. Aroian, L. A. (1944). The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(2), 265-271.
  158. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
  159. Bollen, K. A., & Pearl, J. (2013). Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. In S. L. Morgan (Ed.), Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 301-328). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  160. Bullock, H. E., Harlow, L. L., & Mulaik, S. (1994). Causation issues in structural modeling research. Structural Equation Modeling Journal, 1, 253-267.
  161. Craig, C. C. (1936). On the frequency function of xy. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 7(1), 1-15.
  162. Efron, B. (1987). Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(397), 171-185.
  163. Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233-239.
  164. Fritz, M. S., Taylor, A. B., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2012). Explanation of two anomalous results in statistical mediation analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(1), 61-87.
  165. Goodman, L. A. (1960). On the exact variance of products. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55(292), 708-713.
  166. Halpern, J. Y., & Pearl, J. (2005a). Causes and explanations: A structural-model approach. Part I: Causes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56(4), 843-887.
  167. Halpern, J. Y., & Pearl, J. (2005b). Causes and explanations: A structural-model approach. Part II: Explanations. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56(4), 889-911.
  168. Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect of statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918-1927.
  169. Lau, R. S., & Cheung, G. W. (2012). Estimating and comparing specific mediation effects in complex latent variable models. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 3-16.
  170. Leth-Steensen, C., & Gallitto, E. (2016). Testing mediation in structural equation modeling: The effectiveness of the test of joint significance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(2), 339-351.
  171. Mulaik, S. A. (2009). Linear causal modeling with structural equations. New York: CRC Press.
  172. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). London: Cambridge University Press.
  173. Pearl, J. (2012). The causal foundations of structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 68-91). New York: Guilford Press.
  174. Pearl, J., Glymour, M., & Jewell, N. P. (2016). Causal inference in statistics: A primer. New York: Wiley.
  175. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
  176. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  177. Springer, M. D. (1979). The algebra of random variables. New York: Wiley.
  178. Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., & Tein, J.-Y. (2008). Tests of three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 241-269.
  179. Valente, M. J., Gonzalez, O., Miočević, M., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2016). A note on testing mediated effects in structural equation models: Reconciling past and current research on the performance of the test of joint significance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(6), 889-911.
  180. Wright, S. (1918). On the nature of size factors. Genetics, 3(4), 367-374.
  181. Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557-585.
  182. Wright, S. (1934). The method of path coefficients. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 5, 161-215.
  183. Anderson, T., & Rubin, H. (1956). Statistical inference in factor analysis. In J. Neyman (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability: Econometrics, Industrial Research, and Psychometrics (Vol. V, pp. 111-150). University of California Press.
  184. Bartholomew, D. J., Deary, I. J., & Lawn, M. (2009). The origin of factor scores: Spearman, Thomson and Bartlett. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62(3), 569-582.
  185. Bartlett, M. S. (1937). The statistical conception of mental factors. British Journal of Psychology, 28, 97-104.
  186. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
  187. Bollen, K. A., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305-314.
  188. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  189. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245-276.
  190. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25(1), 1-27.
  191. Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.
  192. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
  193. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.
  194. Fuller, W. A. (1987). Measurement error models. New York: Wiley.
  195. Galassi, J. P., Schanberg, R., & Ware, W. B. (1992). The patient reactions assessment: A brief measure of the quality of the patient-provider medical relationship. Psychological Assessment, 4(3), 346-351.
  196. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  197. Green, S. B., Levy, R., Thompson, M. S., Lu, M., & Lo, W.-J. (2012). A proposed solution to the problem with using completely random data to assess the number of factors with parallel analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(3), 357-374.
  198. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). The relationship of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265-275.
  199. Hancock, G. R., Stapleton, L. M., & Arnold-Berkovits, I. (2009). The tenuousness of invariance tests within multisample covariance and mean structure models. In T. Teo & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts and applications in educational research (pp. 137-174). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  200. Harmon, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed., rev.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

200 of 290 shown

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 1,049

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G.
Affiliations
University of North Texas (US)
Venue
Routledge eBooks
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2015-12-22
DOI
10.4324/9781315749105
OpenAlex
W1836311887
Cited by
6,604
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 122 · 2025: 210 · 2024: 303 · 2023: 300 · 2022: 301 · 2021: 382 · 2020: 360 · 2019: 295 · 2018: 297 · 2017: 294 · 2016: 334 · 2015: 390
FWCI
177.10
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • American Educational Research Association
  • Institute of Education Sciences
  • Division of Human Resource Development
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
structural equation modeling, SEM software, model specification, system identification, model estimation, model testing, model modification, statistical power, hypothesis testing, sampling, effect size, model fit, measurement error, latent variables, path analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, multiple linear regression, missing data, non-normality, restriction of range

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review