On the evaluation of structural equation models

  • Richard P. Bagozzi
  • Youjae Yi


Criteria for evaluating structural equation models with latent variables are defined, critiqued, and illustrated. An overall program for model evaluation is proposed based upon an interpretation of converging and diverging evidence. Model assessment is considered to be a complex process mixing statistical criteria with philosophical, historical, and theoretical elements. Inevitably the process entails some attempt at a reconcilation between so-called objective and subjective norms.


Structural Equation Model Rival Model Unidimensional Model Root Mean Square Residual Multiple Group Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akaike, H. 1974. “A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19:716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing 1984. “The Effect of Sampling Error on Convergence, Improper Solutions, and Goodness-of-fit Indices for Maximum Likelihood Confirmatory Factor Analysis,”Psychometrika 49:155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, Richard P. 1977. “Structural Equation Models in Experimental Research,”Journal of Marketing Research 14:209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. — 1980. Causal Models in Marketing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. — 1981. “An Examination of the Validity of Two Models of Attitude.”Multivariate Behavioral Research 16:323–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. — 1982. “A Field Investigation of Causal Relations Among Cognitions, Affect, Intentions, and Behavior,”Journal of Marketing Research 19:562–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. — 1983. “A Holistic Methodology for Modeling Consumer Response to Innovation,”Operations Research 31:128–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. — 1984. “A Prospectus for Theory Construction in Marketing.”Journal of Marketing 48:11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. — 1986. “Attitude Formation Under the Theory of Reasoned Action and a Purposeful Behavior Reformulation.”British Journal of Social Psychology 25:95–107.Google Scholar
  10. Bagozzi, Richard P. Joham Baumgartner, and Youjae Yi 1988. “An Investigation into the Role of Volitions as Intervening Variables in the Atitude-Behavior Relationship.” Unpublished working paper, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  11. —, and Robert E. Burnkrant 1979. “Attitude Organization and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:913–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bagozzi, Richard P., and Paul R. Warshaw 1988. “From Unintended to Goal-type Behavior and Outcomes: A Theory of Human Action.” Unpublished working paper, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  13. — and Robert E. Burnkrant 1985. “Attitude Organization and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: A Reply to Dillon and Kumar.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49:47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Balderjahn, Ingo 1985. “A Comment on Bagozzi and Burnkrant’s and Dillon and Kumar’s Controversy about Attitude Organization.” Unpublished working paper, Institute for Quantitative Methods, Technical University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  15. Balderjahn, Ingo 1986. “Cross-validation of Covariance Structures in One and Multi Group Analysis: The Case of the Ecologically Concerned Consumers.” Paper presented at the 10th annual meeting of the German Classification Society, June 18–21.Google Scholar
  16. Bearden, W. O., S. Sharma, and J. E. Teel 1982. “Sample Size Effects on Chi square and Other Statistics Used in Evaluating Causal Models.”Journal of Marketing Research 19:425–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bentler, Peter M. 1980. “Multivariate Analysis with Latent Variables: Causal Modeling.”Annual Review of Psychology 31:419–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. — 1985.Theory and Implementation of EQS: A Structural Equations Program, Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.Google Scholar
  19. — and Douglas G. Bonett 1980. “Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in Analysis of Covariance Structures.”Psychological Bulletin 88:588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boomsma, Anne 1985. “Noncovergence, Improper Solutions, and Starting Values in LISREL Maximum Likelihood Estimation.”Psychometrika 50:229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Browne, M. W. 1982. “Covariance Structures.” InTopics in Applied Multivariate Analysis. Ed. D. M. Hawkins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 72–141.Google Scholar
  22. Cliff, Norman 1983. “Some Cautions Concerning the Application of Causal Modeling Methods.”Multivariate Behavioral Research 18:115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cole, David A. and Scott E. Maxwell 1985. “Multitrait-Multimethod Comparisons Across Populations: A Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.”Multivariate Behavioral Research 20:389–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Costner, H. L. and R. Schoenberg 1973. “Diagnosing Indicator, Ills in Multiple Indicator Models.” InStructural Equation Models in the Social Sciences. Eds. A. S. Goldberger and O. D. Duncan. New York: Seminar Press, 167–199.Google Scholar
  25. Cudeck, Robert and Michael W. Browne 1983. “Cross-validation of Covariance Structures.”Multivariate Behavioral Research 18:147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dillon, William R. and S. Kumar 1985. “Attitude Organization and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: A Critique of Bagozzi and Burnkrant’s Reanalysis of Fishbein and Ajzen.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49:33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen 1974. “Attitudes Toward Objects as Predictors of Single and Multiple Behavioral Criteria.”Psychological Review 81:59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error”.Journal of Marketing Research 18:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fornell, Claes, and Roland T. Rust 1986. “Incorporating Prior Theory in Covariance Structure Analysis: A Bayesian Approach.” Unpublished working paper, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  30. Herzberg, P. A. 1969. “The Parameters of Cross-validation”.Psychometrika, 34: Monograph Supplement 16Google Scholar
  31. Hoelter, Jon W. 1983. “The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-fit Indices.Sociological Methods & Research 11:325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Joreskog, Karl G. 1971. “Simultaneous Factor Analysis in Several Populations.”Psychometrika 36:409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. —, and Dag Sorbom 1984.LISREL: Analysis of Linear Structure Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  34. — 1986.PRELIS: A Program for Multivariate Data Screening and Data Summarization. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  35. Mosier, C. I. 1951. “Problems and Designs of Cross-validation.”Educational and Psychological Measurement 11:5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliver, Richard L. and William O. Bearden 1985. “Crossover Effects in the Theory of Reasoned Action: A Moderating Influence Attempt.”Journal of Consumer Research 12:324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rindskopf, David 1983. “Parameterizing Inequality Constraints on Unique Variances in Linear Structural Models.”Psychometrika 48:73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saris, Willem, E. and Henk Stronkhorst 1984. Causal Modelling in Nonexperimental Research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  39. Satorra, A. and William E. Saris 1985. “The Power of the Likelihood Ratio Test ion Covariance Structure Analysis.”Psychometrika 50:83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwartz, G. 1978. “Estimating the Dimension of a Model.,”Annals of Statistics 6:461–464.Google Scholar
  41. Shimp, Terence A. and Alican Kavas 1984. “The Theory of Reasoned Action Applied to Coupon Usage.,”Journal of Consumer Research 11:795–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sobel, Michael E. and George W. Bohrstedt 1985. “Use of Null Models in Evaluating the fit of Covariance Structure Models.” InSociological Methodology 1985. Ed. N. B. Tuma. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 152–178.Google Scholar
  43. Sorbom, Dag 1974. “A General Method for Studying Differences in Factor Means and Factor Structure Between Groups.”British Journal of Mathematical Statistical Psychology 27:229–239.Google Scholar
  44. — 1978. “An Alternative to the Methodology for Analysis of Covariance.”Psychometrika 43:381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Steiger, James H., Alexander Shapiro, and Michael W. Browne 1985. “On the Multivariate Asymptotic Distribution of Sequential Chi-square Statistics.”Psychometrika 50:253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Driel, O. P. 1978. “On various Causes of Improper Solutions of Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis.”Psychometrika 43:225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard P. Bagozzi
    • 1
  • Youjae Yi
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations