{"title":"The SEM Reliability Paradox in a Bayesian Framework","authors":"Timothy R. Konold, Elizabeth A. Sanders","doi":"10.1080/10705511.2023.2220915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Abstract</b></p><p>Within the frequentist structural equation modeling (SEM) framework, adjudicating model quality through measures of fit has been an active area of methodological research. Complicating this conversation is research revealing that a higher quality measurement portion of a SEM can result in poorer estimates of overall model fit than lower quality measurement models, given the same structural misspecifications. Through population analysis and Monte Carlo simulation, we extend the earlier research to recently developed Bayesian SEM measures of fit to evaluate whether these indices are susceptible to the same reliability paradox, in the context of using both uninformative and informative priors. Our results show that the reliability paradox occurs for RMSEA, and to some extent, gamma-hat and PPP (measures of absolute fit); but not CFI or TLI (measures of relative fit), across Bayesian (MCMC) and frequentist (maximum likelihood) SEM frameworks alike. Taken together, these findings indicate that the behavior of these newly adapted Bayesian fit indices map closely to their frequentist analogs. Implications for their utility in identifying incorrectly specified models are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":21964,"journal":{"name":"Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"23 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2023.2220915","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Within the frequentist structural equation modeling (SEM) framework, adjudicating model quality through measures of fit has been an active area of methodological research. Complicating this conversation is research revealing that a higher quality measurement portion of a SEM can result in poorer estimates of overall model fit than lower quality measurement models, given the same structural misspecifications. Through population analysis and Monte Carlo simulation, we extend the earlier research to recently developed Bayesian SEM measures of fit to evaluate whether these indices are susceptible to the same reliability paradox, in the context of using both uninformative and informative priors. Our results show that the reliability paradox occurs for RMSEA, and to some extent, gamma-hat and PPP (measures of absolute fit); but not CFI or TLI (measures of relative fit), across Bayesian (MCMC) and frequentist (maximum likelihood) SEM frameworks alike. Taken together, these findings indicate that the behavior of these newly adapted Bayesian fit indices map closely to their frequentist analogs. Implications for their utility in identifying incorrectly specified models are discussed.
期刊介绍：
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal publishes refereed scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in structural equation modeling. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, psychology, medicine, sociology, education, political science, economics, management, and business/marketing. Theoretical articles address new developments; applied articles deal with innovative structural equation modeling applications; the Teacher’s Corner provides instructional modules on aspects of structural equation modeling; book and software reviews examine new modeling information and techniques; and advertising alerts readers to new products. Comments on technical or substantive issues addressed in articles or reviews published in the journal are encouraged; comments are reviewed, and authors of the original works are invited to respond.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
