How Are We Testing Interactions in Latent Variable Models? Surging Forward or Fighting Shy?

IF 8.9 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Organizational Research Methods Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/1094428119872531
J. Cortina, Hannah M. Markell-Goldstein, Jennifer P. Green, Yingyi Chang
{"title":"How Are We Testing Interactions in Latent Variable Models? Surging Forward or Fighting Shy?","authors":"J. Cortina, Hannah M. Markell-Goldstein, Jennifer P. Green, Yingyi Chang","doi":"10.1177/1094428119872531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Latent variable models and interaction effects have both been common in the organizational sciences for some time. Methods for incorporating interactions into latent variable models have existed since at least Kenny and Judd, and a great many articles and books have developed these methods further. In the present article, we present an empirical review of the methods that organizational science investigators use to test their interaction hypotheses. We show that it is very common for investigators to use fully latent methods to test additive portions of their models, but to abandon such methods when testing the multiplicative portions of their models. By contrast, investigators whose models do not contain interactions tend to stick with fully latent methods throughout. As there is little rational basis for this pattern, it is likely due to continued discomfort regarding the proper application of existing fully latent methods. Thus, we end by offering R code that implements some of the more sophisticated fully latent approaches, and by offering a sequence of decisions that investigators can follow in order to choose the best analytic approach.","PeriodicalId":19689,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Research Methods","volume":"24 1","pages":"26 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1094428119872531","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119872531","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

Latent variable models and interaction effects have both been common in the organizational sciences for some time. Methods for incorporating interactions into latent variable models have existed since at least Kenny and Judd, and a great many articles and books have developed these methods further. In the present article, we present an empirical review of the methods that organizational science investigators use to test their interaction hypotheses. We show that it is very common for investigators to use fully latent methods to test additive portions of their models, but to abandon such methods when testing the multiplicative portions of their models. By contrast, investigators whose models do not contain interactions tend to stick with fully latent methods throughout. As there is little rational basis for this pattern, it is likely due to continued discomfort regarding the proper application of existing fully latent methods. Thus, we end by offering R code that implements some of the more sophisticated fully latent approaches, and by offering a sequence of decisions that investigators can follow in order to choose the best analytic approach.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们如何测试潜在变量模型中的相互作用?勇猛前进还是畏首畏尾?
一段时间以来,潜在变量模型和交互效应在组织科学中都很常见。至少从Kenny和Judd开始就存在将相互作用纳入潜在变量模型的方法,许多文章和书籍对这些方法进行了进一步的发展。在本文中,我们对组织科学研究人员用来测试他们的互动假设的方法进行了实证回顾。我们表明,研究人员使用完全潜在的方法来测试其模型的加法部分是非常常见的,但在测试模型的乘法部分时放弃了这种方法。相比之下,那些模型中不包含相互作用的研究人员往往始终坚持完全潜在的方法。由于这种模式几乎没有合理的依据,这可能是由于对现有的完全潜在方法的正确应用持续感到不适。因此,我们最终提供了实现一些更复杂的完全潜在方法的R代码,并提供了一系列决策,调查人员可以遵循这些决策来选择最佳的分析方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
23.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Organizational Research Methods (ORM) was founded with the aim of introducing pertinent methodological advancements to researchers in organizational sciences. The objective of ORM is to promote the application of current and emerging methodologies to advance both theory and research practices. Articles are expected to be comprehensible to readers with a background consistent with the methodological and statistical training provided in contemporary organizational sciences doctoral programs. The text should be presented in a manner that facilitates accessibility. For instance, highly technical content should be placed in appendices, and authors are encouraged to include example data and computer code when relevant. Additionally, authors should explicitly outline how their contribution has the potential to advance organizational theory and research practice.
期刊最新文献
The Internet Never Forgets: A Four-Step Scraping Tutorial, Codebase, and Database for Longitudinal Organizational Website Data One Size Does Not Fit All: Unraveling Item Response Process Heterogeneity Using the Mixture Dominance-Unfolding Model (MixDUM) Taking It Easy: Off-the-Shelf Versus Fine-Tuned Supervised Modeling of Performance Appraisal Text Hello World! Building Computational Models to Represent Social and Organizational Theory The Effects of the Training Sample Size, Ground Truth Reliability, and NLP Method on Language-Based Automatic Interview Scores’ Psychometric Properties
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1