, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp 373–388 | Cite as

Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and mimic approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct



While effect size estimates, post hoc power estimates, and a priori sample size determination are becoming a routine part of univariate analyses involving measured variables (e.g., ANOVA), such measures and methods have not been articulated for analyses involving latent means. The current article presents standardized effect size measures for latent mean differences inferred from both structured means modeling and MIMIC approaches to hypothesis testing about differences among means on a single latent construct. These measures are then related to post hoc power analysis, a priori sample size determination, and a relevant measure of construct reliability.

Key words

structural equation modeling effect sizes structured means modeling MIMIC models power analysis construct reliability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aiken, L.S., Stein, J.A., & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Structural equation analyses of clinical subpopulation differences and comparative treatment outcomes: Characterizing the daily lives of drug addicts.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 488–499.Google Scholar
  2. Aptech Systems. (1996).GAUSS system and graphics manual. Maple Valley, WA: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Bentler, P.M. (1968). Alpha-maximized factor analysis (alphamax): Its relation to alpha and canonical factor analysis.Psychometrika, 33, 335–345.Google Scholar
  4. Bentler, P.M. (1997).EQS structural equations program. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.Google Scholar
  5. Bentler, P.M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling.Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117.Google Scholar
  6. Browne, M.W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.Google Scholar
  7. Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance.Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.Google Scholar
  8. Cleary, T.A., & Linn, R.L. (1969). Error of measurement and the power of a statistical test.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 22, 49–55.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Crocker, L.M., & Algina, J. (1986).Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  11. Drewes, D.W. (2000). Beyond the Spearman-Brown: A structural approach to maximal reliability.Psychological Methods, 5, 214–227.Google Scholar
  12. Dukes, R.L., Ullman, J.B., & Stein, J.A. (1995). An evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), using a Solomon four-group design with latent variables.Evaluation Review, 19, 409–435.Google Scholar
  13. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.Google Scholar
  14. Gallo, J.J., Anthony, J.C., & Muthén, B.O. (1994). Age differences in the symptoms of depression: A latent trait analysis.Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, 251–264.Google Scholar
  15. Hancock, G.R. (1997). Structural equation modeling methods of hypothesis testing of latent variable means.Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 91–105.Google Scholar
  16. Haynam, G.E., Govindarajulu, Z., & Leone, F.C. (1973). Tables of the cumulative non-central chi-square distribution. In H.L. Harter & D.B. Owen (Eds.),Selected tables in mathematical statistics (Vol. 1, pp. 1–78). Chicago: Markham Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985).Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jöreskog, K.G., & Goldberger, A.S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 631–639.Google Scholar
  19. Kaplan, D., & George, R. (1995). A study of the power associated with testing factor mean differences under violations of factorial invariance.Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2, 101–118.Google Scholar
  20. Kinnunen, U., & Leskinen, E. (1989). Teacher stress during the school year: Covariance and mean structure analyses.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 111–122.Google Scholar
  21. Li, H., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1996). Reliability of measurement in psychology: From Spearman-Brown to maximal reliability.Psychological Methods, 1, 98–107.Google Scholar
  22. MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.Google Scholar
  23. Maxwell, S.E. (1980). Dependent variable reliability and determination of sample size.Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 253–260.Google Scholar
  24. Muthén, B.O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations.Psychometrika, 54, 557–585.Google Scholar
  25. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994).Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. SAS Institute. (1996).SAS statistical software. Cary, NC: Author.Google Scholar
  27. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C.C. Clogg (Eds.),Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Satorra, A., & Saris, W.E. (1985). Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis.Psychometrika, 50, 83–90.Google Scholar
  29. Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structure between groups.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229–239.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations