Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models?

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Levente Littvay²  Leslie A Hayduk¹ 

[1] Department of Sociology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H4, Canada;Department of Political Science, Central European University, Nador u. 9, Budapest, H-1051, Hungary

关键词: Structural equation model;    Testing;    Multiple indicators;    Factor analysis;    Single indicators;   

Others  :  1126597
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-159

 received in 2011-06-09, accepted in 2012-10-14,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Structural equation modeling developed as a statistical melding of path analysis and factor analysis that obscured a fundamental tension between a factor preference for multiple indicators and path modeling’s openness to fewer indicators.

Discussion

Multiple indicators hamper theory by unnecessarily restricting the number of modeled latents. Using the few best indicators – possibly even the single best indicator of each latent – encourages development of theoretically sophisticated models. Additional latent variables permit stronger statistical control of potential confounders, and encourage detailed investigation of mediating causal mechanisms.

Summary

We recommend the use of the few best indicators. One or two indicators are often sufficient, but three indicators may occasionally be helpful. More than three indicators are rarely warranted because additional redundant indicators provide less research benefit than single indicators of additional latent variables. Scales created from multiple indicators can introduce additional problems, and are prone to being less desirable than either single or multiple indicators.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Hayduk and Littvay; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Thurstone LL: Multiple Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1947.
• [2]Harman HH: Modern Factor Analysis. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1967.
• [3]Lawley DN, Maxwell AE: Factor Analysis as a Statistical Method. 2nd edition. London: Butterworth & Co; 1971.
• [4]Mulaik SA: The Foundations of Factor Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1972.
• [5]Wright S: Correlation and causation. J Agric Res 1921, 20:557-585.
• [6]Wright S: The method of path coefficients. Ann Math Stat 1934, 5:161-215.
• [7]Blalock HM Jr: Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 1964.
• [8]Duncan OD: Introduction to Structural Equation Models. New York: Academic Press; 1975.
• [9]Heise DR: Causal Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1975.
• [10]Byrne BM: A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1989.
• [11]Kline RB: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.
• [12]Byrne BM: Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate: Mahwah NJ; 1998.
• [13]Byrne BM: Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. 2nd edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah NJ; 2006.
• [14]Bollen KA: Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley; 1989.
• [15]Hayduk LA: Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1987.
• [16]Hayduk LA: LISREL Issues, Debates and Strategies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1996.
• [17]Anderson JC, Gerbing DW: Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988, 103:411-423.
• [18]Anderson JC, Gerbing DW: Assumptions and comparative strengths of the two-step approach: comment on Fornell and Yi. Sociol Method Res 1992, 20:321-33.
• [19]Fornell C, Yi Y: Assumptions of the two-step approach to latent variable modeling. Sociol Method Res 1992, 20:291-320.
• [20]Fornell C, Yi Y: Assumptions of the two-step approach to latent modeling. Sociol Method Res 1992, 20:334-339.
• [21]SEMNET: The Structural Equation Modeling Discussion Network. http://www.aime.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=SEMNET webcite
• [22]Hayduk LA, Glaser DN: Jiving the four-step, waltzing around factor analysis, and other serious fun. Struct Equ Model 2000, 7:1-35.
• [23]Mulaik SA, Millsap RE: Doing the four-step right. Struct Equ Model 2000, 7:36-73.
• [24]Bollen KA: Modeling strategies: in search of the holy grail. Struct Equ Model 2000, 7:74-81.
• [25]Bentler PM: Rites, wrongs, and gold in model testing. Struct Equ Model 2000, 7:82-91.
• [26]Herting JR, Costner HL: Another perspective on the “proper number of factors” and the appropriate number of steps. Struct Equ Model 2000, 7:92-110.
• [27]Hayduk LA, Glaser DN: Doing the four-step, right-2-3, wrong-2-3: A brief reply to Mulaik and Millsap; Bollen; Bentler; and Herting and Costner. Struct Equ Model 2000, 7:111-123.
• [28]Barrett P: Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personal Individ Differ 2007, 42:815-824.
• [29]Hayduk LA, Cummings GG, Boadu K, Pazderka-Robinson H, Boulianne S: Testing! Testing! One, two, three – Testing the theory in structural equation models! Personal Individ Differ 2007, 42:841-850.
• [30]McIntosh CN: Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personal Individ Differ 2007, 42:859-867.
• [31]Millsap RE: Structural equation modeling made difficult. Personal Individ Differ 2007, 42:875-881.
• [32]Mulaik SA: There is a place for approximate fit in structural equation modelling. Personal Individ Differ 2007, 42:883-891.
• [33]Steiger JH: Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personal Individ Differ 2007, 42:893-898.
• [34]Hayduk LA, Pazderka-Robinson H: Fighting to understand the world causally: Three battles connected to the causal implications of structural equation models. In Pp 147-171 in Outhwaite W, Turner S (eds.), Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology. London: Sage Publications; 2007.
• [35]Jöreskog K, Sörbom D: LISREL 8: Users Reference Guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International; 1996.
• [36]Entwisle DR, Hayduk LA, Reilly TW: Early Schooling: Cognitive and Affective Outcomes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1982.
• [37]Hayduk LA: Personal space: understanding the simplex model. J Nonverbal Behav 1994, 18:245-260.
• [38]Hayduk LA: Personal space: the conceptual and measurement implications of structural equation models. Can J Behav Sci 1985, 17:140-149.
• [39]Hayduk LA, Stratkotter RF, Rovers MW: Sexual orientation and the willingness of Catholic seminary students to conform to church teachings. J Sci Stud Relig 1997, 36:455-467.
• [40]Hayduk LA, Pazderka-Robinson H, Cummings GG, Boadu K, Verbeek EL, Perks TA: The weird world, and equally weird measurement models: Reactive indicators and the validity revolution. Struct Equ Model 2007, 14:280-310.
• [41]Borsboom D, Mellenbergh GJ, van Heerden J: The concept of validity. Psychol Rev 2004, 111:1061-1071.