A Quasi-Likelihood Approach to Assess Model Fit in Quadratic and Interaction SEM

References

• Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Algina, J., & Moulder, B. C. (2001). A note on estimating the Jöreskog-Yang model for latent variable interaction using LISREL 8.3. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(1), 40–52. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0801_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arminger, G., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). A Bayesian approach to nonlinear latent variable models using the Gibbs sampler and the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Psychometrika, 63(3), 271–300. doi:10.1007/BF02294856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(1), 78–102. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, D. J. (2005). A semiparametric approach to modeling nonlinear relations among latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(4), 513–535. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1204_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, J. O. (1985). Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Box, G. E. P. (1954). Some theorems on quadratic forms applied in the study of analysis of variance problems, I. Effect of inequality of variance in the one-way classification. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 25(2), 290–302. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728786
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, H., Kelava, A., & Klein, A. (2014). A simulation study comparing recent approaches for the estimation of nonlinear effects in SEM under the condition of nonnormality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(2), 181–195. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.882660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandtstädter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and accommodative strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5(1), 58–67. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.5.1.58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, R. J., Ruppert, D., & Stefanski, L. A. (1998). Measurement error in nonlinear models (1st ed.). London: Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cudeck, R., Harring, J. R., & du Toit, S. H. C. (2009). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of a latent variable model with interaction. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34(1), 131–144. doi:10.3102/1076998607313593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curran, P., West, S., & Finch, J. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.1.1.16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degenhardt, A., & Schmidt, H. (1994). Physische Leistungsvariablen als Indikatoren für die Diagnose “Klimakterium Virile” [Physical efficiency variables as indicators for the diagnosis of “climacterium virile”]. Sexuologie, 1(3), 131–141.
   Google Scholar
• Demirtas, H., Shi, Y., & Allozi, R. (2016). Poisnonnor: Simultaneous generation of count and continuous data [Computer software manual]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=PoisNonNor (R package version 1.1)
   Google Scholar
• Deusinger, I. (1998). Frankfurter Körperkonzeptskalen [Frankfurt bodily concept scales]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Dimitruk, P., Schermelleh-Engel, K., Kelava, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2007). Challenges in nonlinear structural equation modeling. Methodology, 3(3), 100–114. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.3.3.100
   Google Scholar
• Duchesne, P., & de Micheaux, P. L. (2010). Computing the distribution of quadratic forms: Further comparisons between the Liu-Tang-Zhang approximation and exact methods. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 54(4), 858–862. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947309004381 doi:10.1016/j.csda.2009.11.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foutz, R. V., & Srivastava, R. C. (1977). The performance of the likelihood ratio test when the model is incorrect. The Annals of Statistics, 5(6), 1183–1194. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedrich, R. J. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science, 26(4), 797–833. doi:10.2307/2110973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhard, C., Büchner, R. D., Klein, A. G., & Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2017). A fit index to assess model fit and detect omitted terms in nonlinear SEM. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(3), 414–427. doi:10.1080/10705511.2016.1268923
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harring, J. R., Weiss, B. A., & Hsu, J.-C. (2012). A comparison of methods for estimating quadratic effects in nonlinear structural equation models. Psychological Methods, 17(2), 193–214. doi:10.1037/a0027539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogland, J. J., & Boomsma, A. (1998). Robustness studies in covariance structure modeling: An overview and a meta-analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 26(3), 329–367. doi:10.1177/0049124198026003003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1995). Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects between continuous predictors using multiple regression: Multiple indicator and structural equation approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 348–357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Yang, F. (1996). Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny-Judd model with interaction effects. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 57–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Kelava, A., Kohler, M., KrzyŻak, A., & Schaffland, T. F. (2017). Nonparametric estimation of a latent variable model. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 154, 112–134. doi:10.1016/j.jmva.2016.10.1006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelava, A., Moosbrugger, H., Dimitruk, P., & Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2008). Multicollinearity and missing constraints. Methodology, 4(2), 51–66. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.51
   Google Scholar
• Kelava, A., Werner, C. S., Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., Zapf, D., Ma, Y., … West, S. G. (2011). Advanced nonlinear latent variable modeling: Distribution analytic LMS and QML estimators of interaction and quadratic effects. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(3), 465–491. doi:10.1080/10705511.2011.582408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1984). Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of latent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 96(1), 201–210. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent, J. T. (1982). Robust properties of likelihood ratio tests. Biometrika, 69(1), 19–27. doi:10.1093/binomet/69.1.19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, A. G., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(4), 457–474. doi:10.1007/BF02296338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, A. G., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation of structural equation models with multiple interaction and quadratic effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(4), 647–673. doi:10.1080/00273170701710205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, A. G., & Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2010). Introduction of a new measure for detecting poor fit due to omitted nonlinear terms in SEM. AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, 94(2), 157–166. doi:10.1007/s10182-010-0130-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, S.-Y., Song, X. Y., & Poon, W.-Y. (2004). Comparison of approaches in estimating interaction and quadratic effects of latent variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 37–67. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S.-Y., Song, X.-Y., & Tang, N.-S. (2007). Bayesian methods for analyzing structural equation models with covariates, interaction, and quadratic latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 404–434. doi:10.1080/107055.10701301511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. doi:10.1037/a0033266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longford, N. T. (1995). Random coefficient models. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 519–577). Boston, MA: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mao, X., Harring, J. R., & Hancock, G. R. (2015). A note on the specification of error structures in latent interaction models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(1), 5–21. doi:10.1177/0013164414537491
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcellino, M., & Rossi, B. (2008). Model selection for nested and overlapping nonlinear, dynamic and possibly mis-specified models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70, 867–893. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00534.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K.-T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9(3), 275–300. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.3.275
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., Hau, K.-T., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Structural equation models of latent interaction and quadratic effects. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (Vol. 2, pp. 267–308). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Meng, X.-L. (1994). Posterior predictive p-values. The Annals of Statistics, 22(3), 1142–1160. doi:10.1214/aos/1176325622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mooijaart, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). An alternative approach for nonlinear latent variable models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(3), 357–373. doi:10.1080/10705511.2010.488997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mooijaart, A., & Satorra, A. (2009). On insensitivity of the chi-square model test to nonlinear misspecification in structural equation models. Psychometrika, 74(3), 443–455. doi:10.1007/s11336-009-9112-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mooijaart, A., & Satorra, A. (2012). Moment testing for interaction terms in structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 77(1), 65–84. doi:10.1007/s11336-011-9232-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moosbrugger, H., Schermelleh-Engel, K., Kelava, A., & Klein, A. G. (2009). Testing multiple nonlinear effects in structural equation modeling: A comparison of alternative estimation approaches. In T. Teo & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Structural equation modeling in educational research: Concepts and applications (pp. 103–136). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Moulder, B. C., & Algina, J. (2002). Comparison of methods for estimating and testing latent variable interactions. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(1), 1–19. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ping, R. A. (1995). A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadratic latent variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 336–347. doi:10.1177/002224379503200308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ping, R. A. (1996). Latent variable interaction and quadratic effect estimation: A two-step technique using structural equation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 166–175. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Song, X. Y., & Lee, S.-Y. (2012). Basic and Advanced Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling: With Applications in the Medical and Behavioral Sciences. Chicester, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Song, X.-Y., Lu, Z.-H., Cai, J.-H., & Ip, E. H.-S. (2013). A Bayesian modeling approach for generalized semiparametric structural equation models. Psychometrika, 78(4), 624–647. doi:10.1007/s11336-013-9323-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolzenberg, R. M. (1980). The measurement and decomposition of causal effects in nonlinear and nonadditive models. Sociological Methodology, 11, 459–488. doi:10.2307/270872
   Google Scholar
• Thiele, A. (1998). Verlust körperlicher Leistungsfähigkeit: Bewältigung des Alterns bei Männern im mittleren Lebensalter [Loss of physical ability. Coping with aging in middle-aged men]. Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.18637/jss.v077.i07
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaart, A. W. v. d. (1998). Asymptotic statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802256
   Google Scholar
• Vale, C. D., & Maurelli, V. A. (1983). Simulating multivariate nonnormal distributions. Psychometrika, 48(3), 465–471. doi:10.1007/BF02293687
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall, M. M., & Amemiya, Y. (2000). Estimation for polynomial structural equation models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(451), 929–940. doi:10.2307/2669475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall, M. M., & Amemiya, Y. (2001). Generalized appended product indicator procedure for nonlinear structural equation analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 26(1), 1–29. doi:10.3102/10769986026001001
   Google Scholar
• Wall, M. M., & Amemiya, Y. (2003). A method of moments technique for fitting interaction effects in structural equation models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 56(1), 47–63. doi:10.1348/000711003321645331
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1974). Quasi-likelihood functions, generalized linear models, and the Gauss-Newton method. Biometrika, 61(3), 439–447. doi:10.2307/2334725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, B. A. (2010). A comparison of methods for testing for interaction effects in structural equation modeling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
   Google Scholar
• Wen, Z., Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2010). Structural equation models of latent interactions: An appropriate standardized solution and its scale-free properties. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/10705510903438872
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica, 50(1), 1–25. doi:10.2307/1912526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, M., & Dunson, D. B. (2010). Bayesian semiparametric structural equation models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 75(4), 675–693. doi:10.1007/s11336-010-9174-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar