Prescriptive Statements and Educational Practice: What Can Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Offer?
- 387 Downloads
Longitudinal structural equation modeling (SEM) can be a basis for making prescriptive statements on educational practice and offers yields over “traditional” statistical techniques under the general linear model. The extent to which prescriptive statements can be made will rely on the appropriate accommodation of key elements of research design, measurement, and theory. If these key elements are not adequately incorporated in educational SEM research, prescriptive statements become less justified, and in many cases, untenable. This is not to discount cross-sectional SEM as a basis for prescriptive considerations; however, it is more defensible to consider cross-sectional findings in terms of prescriptive possibilities and prescriptive inferences rather than prescriptive statements. This article examines what, when, and how SEM can contribute to prescriptive statements in education.
KeywordsStructural equation modeling Practice Causal modeling Longitudinal Cross-sectional
The author would like to thank Paul Ginns, Herb Marsh, Susan Colmar, Jasmine Green, and Gregory Liem for their input on perspectives presented in this article.
- Burtless, G. 1996. Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
- Byrne, B.M. 1984. The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54, 427–456.Google Scholar
- Hancock, G.R., Mueller, R.O. (Eds.). 2006. Structural equation modeling: A second course. Greenwich, CO: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Marsh, H.W., Martin, A.J., Hau, K.T. 2006a. A multiple method perspective on self-concept research in educational psychology: A construct validity approach. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 441–456). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marsh, H.W., Wen, Z., Hau, K.T. 2006b. Structural equation models of latent interaction and quadratic effects. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 225–265). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
- Marsh, H.W., Hau, K. T., Wen, Z. L. (2004) In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralising Hu & Bentler (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.Google Scholar
- Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W.H., Shavelson, R.J. 2007. Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
- Schumacker, R.E., Lomax, R.G. 2004. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Shavelson, R.J. 1996. Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Temple, J.A., Reynolds, A.J., Ou, S.-R. 2004. Grade retention and school dropout: Another look at the evidence. In H. J. Walberg, A. J. Reynolds, & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Can unlike students learn together? Grade retention, tracking, and grouping (pp. 35–70). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Walls, T.A., Schafer, J.L. (Eds.). 2006. Models for intensive longitudinal data. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar