A Systematic Evaluation and Comparison Between Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling and Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling

In this study, [the authors] contrast two competing approaches, not previously compared, that balance the rigor of CFA/SEM with the flexibility to fit realistically complex data. Exploratory SEM (ESEM) is claimed to provide an optimal compromise between EFA and CFA/SEM. Alternatively, a family of th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Structural equation modeling 2019-07, Vol.26 (4), p.529–556-26:4<529–556
Main Authors: Guo, Jiesi, Marsh, Herbert W, Parker, Philip D, Dicke, Theresa, Lüdtke, Oliver, Diallo, Thierno M. O
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bayes-Statistik
Bayesian analysis
Bayesian statistics
Evaluation
exploratory structural equation modeling
Factor analysis
Faktorenanalyse
informative priors
Messgenauigkeit
Modellierung
Priorität
Statistik
Structural equation modeling
Strukturformel
Strukturmodell
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In this study, [the authors] contrast two competing approaches, not previously compared, that balance the rigor of CFA/SEM with the flexibility to fit realistically complex data. Exploratory SEM (ESEM) is claimed to provide an optimal compromise between EFA and CFA/SEM. Alternatively, a family of three Bayesian SEMs (BSEMs) replace fixed-zero estimates with informative, small-variance priors for different subsets of parameters: cross-loadings (CL), residual covariances (RC), or CLs and RCs (CLRC). In Study 1, using three simulation studies, results showed that (1) BSEM-CL performed more closely to ESEM; (2) BSEM-CLRC did not provide more accurate model estimation compared with BSEM-CL; (3) BSEM-RC provided unstable estimation; and (4) different specifications of targeted values in ESEM and informative priors in BSEM have significant impacts on model estimation. The real data analysis (Study 2) showed that the differences in estimation between different models were largely consistent with those in Study 1 but somewhat smaller. (Orig.).
ISSN:1070-5511
1532-8007
DOI:10.1080/10705511.2018.1554999