Advertisement

Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 235–244 | Cite as

Prescriptive Statements and Educational Practice: What Can Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Offer?

  • Andrew J. Martin
Essay

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Structural equation modeling Practice Causal modeling Longitudinal Cross-sectional 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Burkholder, G.J., Harlow, L.L. 2003. An illustration of a longitudinal cross-lagged design for larger structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burtless, G. 1996. Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Cole, D.A., Maxwell, S.E. 2003. Testing meditational models with longitudinal data: Myths and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grant, A.M., Wall, T.D. 2009. The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation: Why-to, when-to, and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 653–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hancock, G.R., Mueller, R.O. (Eds.). 2006. Structural equation modeling: A second course. Greenwich, CO: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Herzog, W., Boomsma, A. 2009. Small-sample robust estimators of noncentrality-based and incremental model fit. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Khoo, S.T. 2001. Assessing program effects in the presence of treatment-baseline interactions: A latent curve approach. Psychological Methods, 6, 234–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Little, T.D., Preacher, K.J., Selig, J.P., Card, N.A. 2007. New developments in latent variable panel analyses of longitudinal data. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. MacCallum, R.C., Austin, J.T. 2000. Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marsh, H.W., Byrne, B.M., Yeung, S.Y. 1999. Causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: Reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recommendations. Educational Psychologist, 34, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marsh, H.W., Köller, O., Baumert, J. 2001. Reunification of East and West German school systems: Longitudinal multilevel modeling study of the big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 321–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Martin, A.J. 2009. Age appropriateness and motivation, engagement, and performance in high school: Effects of age-within-cohort, grade retention, and delayed school entry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W. 2008. Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 53–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin, A.J., Liem, G.A. 2010. Academic Personal Bests (PBs), engagement, and achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 265–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., Debus, R.L. 2001. A quadripolar need achievement representation of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., Debus, R.L. 2003. Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: A model of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin, A.J., Colmar, S.H., Davey, L.A., Marsh, H.W. 2010. Longitudinal modeling of academic buoyancy and motivation: Do the ‘5Cs’ hold up over time? The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McArdle, J.J. 2009. Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muthen, B.O., Curran, P.J. 1997. General longitudinal modeling of individual differences in experimental designs: A latent variable framework for analysis and power estimation. Psychological Methods, 2, 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muthen, B.O., Khoo, S.-T. 1998. Longitudinal studies of achievement growth using latent variable modeling. Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robinson, D.H., Levin, J.R., Thomas, G.D., Pituch, K.A., Vaughn, S. 2007. The incidence of ‘causal’ statements in teaching-and-learning research journals. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 400–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Russell, D.W., Kahn, J.H., Spoth, R., Altmaier, E.M. 1998. Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schafer, J.L., Kang, J. 2008. Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: A practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods, 13, 279–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Schumacker, R.E., Lomax, R.G. 2004. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Schweizer, K. 2008. Investigating experimental effects within the framework of structural equation modeling: An example with effects on both error scores and reaction times. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. 2009. The renaissance of field experimentation in evaluating interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 607–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shavelson, R.J. 1996. Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Tomarken, J.A., Waller, G.N. 2005. Structural equation modeling: Strengths, limitations, and misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 31–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walls, T.A., Schafer, J.L. (Eds.). 2006. Models for intensive longitudinal data. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. West, S.G. 2009. Alternatives to randomized experiments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wong, C.-S., Law, K.S. 1999. Testing reciprocal relations by nonrecursive structural equation models using cross-sectional data. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations