Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 191–213 | Cite as

Representing general theoretical concepts in structural equation models: the role of composite variables

  • James B. GraceEmail author
  • Kenneth A. Bollen


Structural equation modeling (SEM) holds the promise of providing natural scientists the capacity to evaluate complex multivariate hypotheses about ecological systems. Building on its predecessors, path analysis and factor analysis, SEM allows for the incorporation of both observed and unobserved (latent) variables into theoretically-based probabilistic models. In this paper we discuss the interface between theory and data in SEM and the use of an additional variable type, the composite. In simple terms, composite variables specify the influences of collections of other variables and can be helpful in modeling heterogeneous concepts of the sort commonly of interest to ecologists. While long recognized as a potentially important element of SEM, composite variables have received very limited use, in part because of a lack of theoretical consideration, but also because of difficulties that arise in parameter estimation when using conventional solution procedures. In this paper we present a framework for discussing composites and demonstrate how the use of partially-reduced-form models can help to overcome some of the parameter estimation and evaluation problems associated with models containing composites. Diagnostic procedures for evaluating the most appropriate and effective use of composites are illustrated with an example from the ecological literature. It is argued that an ability to incorporate composite variables into structural equation models may be particularly valuable in the study of natural systems, where concepts are frequently multifaceted and the influence of suites of variables are often of interest.


Composites Constructs Construct models Latent variables Structural equation modeling Theoretical concepts 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Belovsky GE, Botkin DB, Crowl TA, Cummins KW, Franklin JF, Hunter ML, Joern A, Lindemayer DB, MacMahon JA, Margules CR and Scott MJ (2004). Ten suggestions to strengthen the science of ecology. Bioscience 54: 345–351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blalock HM (1964). Causal inferences in nonexperimental research. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill Google Scholar
  3. Bollen KA (1984). Multiple indicators: internal consistency or no necessary relationship. Qual Quant 18: 377–385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen KA (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons, New York Google Scholar
  5. Bollen KA (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: two types of simple size effects. Psychol Bull 107: 256–259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollen KA and Lennox R (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychol Bull 110: 305–314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bollen KA and Ting K (2000). A tetrad test for causal indicators. Psycholo Methods 5: 3–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diamantopoulous A and Winklhofer HM (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. J Marketing Res 38: 269–277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards JR (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: an integrative analytical framework. Organ Res Methods 4: 144–192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fayers PM and Hand DJ (2002). Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: an example from quality of life. J R Stat Soc Ser A 165: 233–261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grace JB (2003). Examining the relationship between environmental variables and ordination axes using latent variables and structural equation modeling. Chap 7. In: Pugesek, BH and Tomer, A (eds) Structural equation modeling, pp 171–193. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  12. Grace JB (2006) Structural equation modeling and natural systems. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Grace JB and Bollen KA (2005). Interpreting the results from multiple regression and structural equation models. Bull Ecol Soc Am 86: 283–295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grace JB, Bollen KA (2006) The interface between theory and data in structural equation models. USGS Open-File Report. Available at
  15. Heise DR (1972). Employing nominal variables, induced variables and block variables in path analyses. Sociol Method Res 1: 147–173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hipp J, Bauer DJ and Bollen KA (2005). Conducting tetrad tests of model fit and contrasts of tetrad-nested models: a new SAS macro. Struct Equ Model 12: 76–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jarvis CB, MacKenzie SB and Podsakoff PM (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. J Consum Res 30: 199–218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson ML, Huggins DG and deNoyelles F Jr (1991). Ecosystem modeling with LISREL: a new approach for measuring direct and indirect effects. Ecolo Appl 1: 383–398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laughlin DC, Grace JB (2006) A multivariate model of plant species richness in forested systems: old-growth montane forests with a long history of fire. Oikos 114:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levins R (1968). Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton Google Scholar
  21. MacCallum RC and Browne MW (1993). The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: some practical issues. Psychol Bull 114: 533–541 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell RJ (1992). Testing evolutionary and ecological hypotheses using path analysis and structural equation modelling. Funct Ecol 6: 123–129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muthén LK and Muthén BO (2004). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles Google Scholar
  24. Pugesek BH and Tomer A (1996). The Bumpus house sparrow data: a reanalysis using structural equation models. Evol Ecol 10: 387–404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pugesek BH, Tomer A and Eye A (2003). Structural equation modeling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  26. Shipley B (2000). Cause and correlation in biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  27. Spirtes P, Glymour C and Scheines R (1993). Causation, prediction, and Search. Springer-Verlag, New York Google Scholar
  28. Verheyen K, Guntenspergen GR, Biesbrouck B and Hermy M (2003). An integrated analysis of the effects of past land use on forest herb colonization at the landscape scale. J Ecol 91: 731–742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weiher E, Forbes S, Schauwecker T and Grace JB (2004). Multivariate control of plant species richness in a blackland prairie. Oikos 106: 151–157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams LJ, Edwards JR and Vandenberg RJ (2003). Recent advances in causal modeling methods for organizational and management research. J Manage 29: 903–936 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wright S (1921). Correlation and causation. J Agr Res 10: 557–585 Google Scholar
  32. Wright S (1968). Evolution and the genetics of populations, vol. 1: genetic and biometric foundations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyLafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology, Odum Institute for Research in Social ScienceUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations