Effects of score discreteness and estimating alternative model parameters on power estimation methods in structural equation modeling

Pui-wa Lei, Stephen B. Dunbar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to examine relative performance of 2 power estimation methods in structural equation modeling. Sample size, alpha level, type of manifest variable, type of specification errors, and size of correlation between constructs were manipulated. Type 1 error rate of the model chi-square test, empirical critical values, and empirical power were established through Monte Carlo simulations. The power estimation methods performed similarly. Bias and standard error appeared to relate nonlinearly to the magnitude of "true" power. When the alternative population matrix was estimated, bias leaned toward the middle of the power scale regardless of score level. When the alternative population matrix was known, bias was small for continuous scores throughout the power scale but large for discrete scores with medium-sized power. Standard error was larger in the middle than at the ends of the power scale. Implications of the findings and future directions are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)20-44
Number of pages25
JournalStructural Equation Modeling
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004

Fingerprint

Structural Equation Modeling
Standard error
Alternatives
Chi-squared test
Error Rate
Critical value
Sample Size
Monte Carlo Simulation
Model
Specification
trend
Specifications
Structural equation modeling
Alternative models
simulation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Decision Sciences(all)
  • Modeling and Simulation
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Economics, Econometrics and Finance(all)

Cite this

@article{f51677458d18444ea78fd6e7901fdbb7,
title = "Effects of score discreteness and estimating alternative model parameters on power estimation methods in structural equation modeling",
abstract = "The primary purpose of this study was to examine relative performance of 2 power estimation methods in structural equation modeling. Sample size, alpha level, type of manifest variable, type of specification errors, and size of correlation between constructs were manipulated. Type 1 error rate of the model chi-square test, empirical critical values, and empirical power were established through Monte Carlo simulations. The power estimation methods performed similarly. Bias and standard error appeared to relate nonlinearly to the magnitude of {"}true{"} power. When the alternative population matrix was estimated, bias leaned toward the middle of the power scale regardless of score level. When the alternative population matrix was known, bias was small for continuous scores throughout the power scale but large for discrete scores with medium-sized power. Standard error was larger in the middle than at the ends of the power scale. Implications of the findings and future directions are discussed.",
author = "Pui-wa Lei and Dunbar, {Stephen B.}",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1207/S15328007SEM1101_2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "20--44",
journal = "Structural Equation Modeling",
issn = "1070-5511",
publisher = "Psychology Press Ltd",
number = "1",

}

Effects of score discreteness and estimating alternative model parameters on power estimation methods in structural equation modeling. / Lei, Pui-wa; Dunbar, Stephen B.

In: Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 11, No. 1, 01.01.2004, p. 20-44.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of score discreteness and estimating alternative model parameters on power estimation methods in structural equation modeling

AU - Lei, Pui-wa

AU - Dunbar, Stephen B.

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - The primary purpose of this study was to examine relative performance of 2 power estimation methods in structural equation modeling. Sample size, alpha level, type of manifest variable, type of specification errors, and size of correlation between constructs were manipulated. Type 1 error rate of the model chi-square test, empirical critical values, and empirical power were established through Monte Carlo simulations. The power estimation methods performed similarly. Bias and standard error appeared to relate nonlinearly to the magnitude of "true" power. When the alternative population matrix was estimated, bias leaned toward the middle of the power scale regardless of score level. When the alternative population matrix was known, bias was small for continuous scores throughout the power scale but large for discrete scores with medium-sized power. Standard error was larger in the middle than at the ends of the power scale. Implications of the findings and future directions are discussed.

AB - The primary purpose of this study was to examine relative performance of 2 power estimation methods in structural equation modeling. Sample size, alpha level, type of manifest variable, type of specification errors, and size of correlation between constructs were manipulated. Type 1 error rate of the model chi-square test, empirical critical values, and empirical power were established through Monte Carlo simulations. The power estimation methods performed similarly. Bias and standard error appeared to relate nonlinearly to the magnitude of "true" power. When the alternative population matrix was estimated, bias leaned toward the middle of the power scale regardless of score level. When the alternative population matrix was known, bias was small for continuous scores throughout the power scale but large for discrete scores with medium-sized power. Standard error was larger in the middle than at the ends of the power scale. Implications of the findings and future directions are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2642551580&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2642551580&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1207/S15328007SEM1101_2

DO - 10.1207/S15328007SEM1101_2

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:2642551580

VL - 11

SP - 20

EP - 44

JO - Structural Equation Modeling

JF - Structural Equation Modeling

SN - 1070-5511

IS - 1

ER -