References
- Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
- Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances: Comments on Stromeyer et. Journal of Management, 41, 1561–1577. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315591075
- Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In K. G. Jöreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction (pp. 149–173). North-Holland.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
- Depaoli, S., & Clifton, J. P. (2015). A Bayesian approach to multilevel structural equation modeling with continuous and dichotomous outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling, 22, 327–351. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.937849
- Guo, J., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Dicke, T., Lüdtke, O., & Diallo, T. M. O. (2019). A systematic evaluation and comparison between exploratory structural equation modeling and Bayesian structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 26, 529–556. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1554999
- Hoijtink, H., & Van de Schoot, R. (2018). Testing small variance priors using prior-posterior predictive p values. Psychological Methods, 23, 561–569. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000131
- Hoogland, J. J., & Boomsma, A. (1998). Robustness studies in covariance structure modeling: An overview and a meta-analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 26, 329–367. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124198026003003
- Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
- Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 09, 2207. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126
- Liang, X., Yang, Y., & Cao, C. (2020). The performance of ESEM and BSEM in structural equation models with ordinal indicators. Structural Equation Modeling, 27, 1–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1716770
- MacCallum, R. C., Edwards, M. C., & Cai, L. (2012). Hopes and cautions in implementing Bayesian structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 17, 340–345. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027131
- MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490–504. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490
- MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
- Mai, Y., Zhang, Z., & Wen, Z. (2018). Comparing exploratory structural equation modeling and existing approaches for multiple regression with latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 25, 737–749. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1444993
- Marsh, H. W., Guo, J., Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., & Craven, R. G. (2019). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and Set-ESEM: Optimal balance between goodness of fit and parsimony. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 55, 1–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1602503
- Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 322–346. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406657
- Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227
- Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
- Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439–476. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008220
- Murray, A. L., Booth, T., Eisner, M., Obsuth, I., & Ribeaud, D. (2019). Quantifying the strength of general factors in psychopathology: A comparison of CFA with maximum likelihood estimation, BSEM, and ESEM/EFA bifactor approaches. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101, 631–643. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1468338
- Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313–335. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026802
- Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998). Mplus 7. Muthén & Muthén.
- Pan, J., Ip, E. H., & Dubé, L. (2017). An alternative to post hoc model modification in confirmatory factor analysis: The Bayesian lasso. Psychological Methods, 22, 687. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000112
- Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022658
- Reis, D. (2017). Further insights into the German version of the multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA): Exploratory and Bayesian structural equation modeling approaches. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35, 317–325. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000404
- Sánchez-Carracedo, D., Barrada, J. R., López-Guimerà, G., Fauquet, J., Almenara, C. A., & Trepat, E. (2012). Analysis of the factor structure of the sociocultural attitudes towards appearance questionnaire (SATAQ-3) in Spanish secondary-school students through exploratory structural equation modeling. Body Image, 9, 163–171. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.10.002
- Scheines, R., Hoijtink, H., & Boomsma, A. (1999). Bayesian estimation and testing of structural equation models. Psychometrika, 64, 37–52. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294318
- Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 304–321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653
- van de Schoot, R., Winter, S. D., Ryan, O., Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, M., & Depaoli, S. (2017). A systematic review of Bayesian articles in psychology: The last 25 years. Psychological Methods, 22, 217–239. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000100
- Van Erp, S., Mulder, J., & Oberski, D. L. (2018). Prior sensitivity analysis in default Bayesian structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 23, 363–388. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000162
- Xiao, Y., Liu, H., & Hau, K.-T. (2019). A comparison of CFA, ESEM, and BSEM in test structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 26, 665–677. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1562928
- Yuan, Y., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2009). Bayesian mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 14, 301–322. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016972
- Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, M., Peeters, M., Depaoli, S., & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Where do priors come from? Applying guidelines to construct informative priors in small sample research. Research in Human Development, 14, 305–320. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2017.1370966