Abstract
This chapter presents an overview of the process of structural equation modeling, involving the steps of model specification, model estimation, overall fit evaluation, model respecification, and local fit assessment (including interpreting the parameters of the model). Various extensions of the core structural equation model are described to enable more general representations of measurement and latent variable models as well as applications of the model to heterogeneous populations. An empirical example is provided to illustrate the process of structural equation modeling and to demonstrate some of the complexities that may arise in practical applications.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York: Wiley.
Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Baumgartner, H., & Weijters, B. (2019). Measurement in marketing. Foundations and Trends® in Marketing, 12(4), 278–400.
Baumgartner, H., & Weijters, B. (forthcoming). Dealing with common method variance in international marketing research. Journal of International Marketing. in press.
Baumgartner, H., Weijters, B., & Pieters, R. (2021). The biasing effect of common method variance: Some clarifications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00766-8.
Bollen, K. A. (2011). Evaluating effect, composite, and causal indicators in structural equation models. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 359–372.
Bollen, K. A. (2012). Instrumental variables in sociology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 37–72.
Bollen, K. A. (2018). Model implied instrumental variables (MIIVs): An alternative orientation to structural equation modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54(1), 31–46.
Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. Hoboken: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., Harden, J. J., Ray, S., & Zavisca, J. (2014). BIC and alternative Bayesian information criteria in the selection of structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(1), 1–19.
Chapman, C., & Feit, E. M. D. (2019). R for marketing research and analytics (2nd ed.). Springer: Cham.
Cortina, J. M., Markell-Goldstein, H. M., Green, J. P., & Chang, Y. (2021). How are we testing interactions in latent variable models? Surging forward or fighting shy? Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 26–54.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Incorporating formative measures into covariance-based structural equation models. MIS Quarterly, 35(June), 335–358.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(May), 269–277.
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1203–1218.
Diop, E. B., Zhao, S., & Duy, T. V. (2019). An extension of the technology acceptance model for understanding travelers’ adoption of variable message signs. PLoS One, 14(4), e0216007.
Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370–388.
Fisher, Z. F., Bollen, K. A., Gates, K., & Ronkko, M. (2020). MlIVsem: Model implied instrumental variable (MIIV) estimation of structural equation models. R package version 0.5.5.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 205–218.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.
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.
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.
Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1984). Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of latent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 201–210.
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(December), 457–474.
Kline, R. B. (2013). Reverse arrow dynamics: Feedback loops and formative measurement. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 39–76). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
MacCallum, R. C. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 107–120.
MacCallum, R. C., & Browne, M. W. (1993). The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: Some practical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 533–541.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modification in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490–504.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(June), 293–334.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104.
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 (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.
Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110.
McNeish, D. (2020). Should we use F-tests for model fit instead of chi-square in over-identified structural equation models? Organizational Research Methods, 23, 487–510.
Muthén, B. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 1–33). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2011). Beyond multilevel regression modeling: Multilevel analysis in a general latent variable framework. In J. Hox & J. K. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of advanced multilevel analysis (pp. 15–40). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599–620.
Niemand, T., & Mai, R. (2018). Flexible cutoff values for fit indices in the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46, 1148–1172.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344.
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, A. 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.
Rhemtulla, M., van Bork, R., & Borsboom, D. (2020). Worse than measurement error: Consequences of inappropriate latent variable measurement models. Psychological Methods, 25(1), 30–45.
Rönkko, M., McIntosh, C. N., Antonakis, J., & Edwards, J. R. (2016). Partial least squares path modeling: Time for some serious second thoughts. Journal of Operations Management, 47–48(November), 9–27.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in crossnational consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(June), 78–90.
Sterba, S. K. (2011). Implications of parcel-allocation variability for comparing fit of item-solutions and parcel-solutions. Structural Equation Modeling, 18(4), 554–577.
Sterba, S. K., & Pek, J. (2012). Individual influence on model selection. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 582–599.
Sterba, S. K., & Rights, J. D. (2017). Effects of parceling on model selection: Parcel-allocation variability in model ranking. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 47–68.
Umbach, N., Naumann, K., Brandt, H., & Kelava, A. (2017). Fitting nonlinear structural equation models in R with package nlsem. Journal of Statistical Software, 77(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18637/iss.v077.i07.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(January), 4–69.
Weijters, B., & Baumgartner, H. (2019). Analyzing Policy Capturing Data Using Structural Equation Modeling for Within-Subject Experiments (SEMWISE). Organizational Research Methods, 22(3), 623–648.
Weijters, B., & Baumgartner, H. (forthcoming). On the use of balanced item parceling to counter acquiescence bias in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods. in press.
Wilcox, J. B., Howell, R. D., & Breivik, E. (2008). Questions about formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1219–1228.
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2016). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (6th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Yang, M., Jiang, G., & Yuan, K.-H. (2018). The performance of ten modified rescaled statistics as the number of variables increases. Structural Equation Modeling, 25(3), 414–438.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from the Smeal Chair Endowment is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to thank two reviewers and the editors for helpful comments on a previous version of this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Baumgartner, H., Weijters, B. (2022). Structural Equation Modeling. In: Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Vomberg, A. (eds) Handbook of Market Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57411-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57413-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences