Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 8–34 | Cite as

Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models

Article

Abstract

We provide a comprehensive and user-friendly compendium of standards for the use and interpretation of structural equation models (SEMs). To both read about and do research that employs SEMs, it is necessary to master the art and science of the statistical procedures underpinning SEMs in an integrative way with the substantive concepts, theories, and hypotheses that researchers desire to examine. Our aim is to remove some of the mystery and uncertainty of the use of SEMs, while conveying the spirit of their possibilities.

Keywords

Structural equation models Confirmatory factor analysis Construct validity Reliability Goodness-of-fit 

References

  1. Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). AMOS 18 user’s guide. Crawfordville: Amos Development Corporation.Google Scholar
  2. Audi, R. (Ed.). (1995). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, R. P. (1977). Structural equation models in experimental research. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Bagozzi, R. P. (1984). A prospectus for theory construction in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 48, 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagozzi, R. P. (1994). The effects of arousal on the organization of positive and negative affect and cognitions: application to attitude theory. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 222–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bagozzi, R. P. (1996). The role of arousal in the creation and control of the halo effect in attitude models. Psychology and Marketing, 13, 235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from reflective measurement: comment on Howell, Breivik, and Wilcox. Psychological Methods, 12, 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bagozzi, R. P. (2010). Structural equation models are modeling tools with many ambiguities: comments acknowledging the need for caution and humility in their use. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bagozzi, R. P. (2011a). Measurement and meaning in information systems and organizational research: methodological and philosophical foundations. MIS Quarterly, 35, 261–292.Google Scholar
  11. Bagozzi, R. P. (2011b). Alternative perspectives in philosophy of mind and their relationship to structural equation models in psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of structural equation models and hypothesis testing. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Basic principles of marketing research (pp. 386–422). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 459–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1990). Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: the case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1992). Testing hypotheses about methods, traits, and communalities in the direct product model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bagozzi, R. P., Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Canonical correlation analysis as a special case of a structural relations model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. (1991a). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991b). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: two extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Nassen, K. (1999). Representation of measurement error in marketing variables: review of approaches and extension to three facet designs. Journal of Econometrics, 89, 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bagozzi, R. P., Lee, K., & Van Loo, M. F. (2001). Decisions to donate bone marrow: the role of attitudes and subjective norms across cultures. Psychology and Health, 16, 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bagozzi, R. P., Moore, D. J., & Leone, L. (2004). Self-control and the self-regulation of dieting decisions: the role of prefactual attitudes, subjective norms, and resistance to temptation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26, 199–213.Google Scholar
  27. Bagozzi, R. P., Bergami, M., Marzocchi, G. L., & Morandin, G. (2011). Customer-organization relationships: development and test of a theory of extended identities. Journal of Applied Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
  28. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: adjusting model fit. Personality and Individual Difference, 42, 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Bechger, T. M., & Maris, G. (2004). Structural equation modeling of multiple facet data: extending models for multitrait-multimethod data. Psicologica, 25, 253–274.Google Scholar
  30. Bentler, P. M. (2008). EQS 6: Structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software.Google Scholar
  31. Bentler, P. M. (2010). SEM with simplicity and accuracy. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 78–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Bentler, P. M., & Weeks, D. G. (1980). Linear structural equations with latent variables. Psychometrika, 45, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization and commitment as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization: conceptualization, measurement, and relation to antecedents and consequences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Blackburn, S. (1994). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2002). Structural equation modeling of repeated measures data. In D. Moskowitz & S. Hershberger (Eds.), Modeling intraindividual variability with repeated measures data: Methods and applications (pp. 59–86). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17, 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indices to misspecified structural or measurement model components: rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4, 1–78.Google Scholar
  46. Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2009). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007a). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007b). Is formative measurement really measurement: reply to Bollen (2007) and Bagozzi (2007). Psychological Methods, 12, 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indexes in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Iacobucci, D. (2009). Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural equation modeling) but were afraid to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 673–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equation modeling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jamshidian, M., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). ML estimation of mean and covariance structures with missing data using complete data routines. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 21–41.Google Scholar
  54. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996a). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  57. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996b). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  58. Jöreskog, K. G., & Yang, F. (1996). Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenney-Judd model with interaction effects. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 57–88). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Kühnel, S. M. (1988). Testing Manova designs with LISREL. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 504–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lord, F., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  62. Markland, D. (2007). The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: a commentary on Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Difference, 42, 851–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, J. (2004). In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Marsh, H. W., Wen, J., & Hau, K. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practices in reporting nonlinear latent variables models. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mooyaart, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). An alternative approach for nonlinear latent variable models. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
  69. Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31, 623–656.Google Scholar
  70. Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. (2003). The mismeasure of man(agement) and its implications for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 615–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: illustration of a latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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 variable analysis: Applications to development research (pp. 399–419). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  73. Savalei, V., & Bentler, P. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling. In R. Grover & M. Vriens (Eds.), The handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances (pp. 330–364). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. Savalei, V., & Bentler, P. M. (2009). A two-stage approach to missing data: theory and application to auxiliary variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 477–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  76. Von Wright, G. H. (1974). Causality and determinism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Wothke, W., & Browne, M. W. (1990). The direct product model for the MTMM matrix parameterized as a second order factor analysis model. Psychometrika, 55, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yuan, K., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Robust means and covariance structure analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 51, 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yuan, K., & Bentler, P. M. (2007). Robust procedures in structural equation models. In S. Lee (Ed.), Handbook of latent variable and related models (pp. 367–397). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ross School of BusinessUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.College of Business AdministrationSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations