Skip to main content
Log in

The robustness of estimates of total indirect effects in covariance structure models estimated by maximum

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The large sample distribution of total indirect effects in covariance structure models in well known. Using Monte Carlo methods, this study examines the applicability of the large sample theory to maximum likelihood estimates oftotal indirect effects in sample sizes of 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800. Two models are studied. Model 1 is a recursive model with observable variables and Model 2 is a nonrecursive model with latent variables. For the large sample theory to apply, the results suggest that sample szes of 200 or more and 400 or more are required for models such as Model 1 and Model 2, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis.American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. W. (1984).An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. M. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1986). Structural equation modeling and Psychometrika: An historical perspective on growth and achievements.Psychometrika, 51, 35–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Weeks, D. G. (1980). Linear structural equations with latent variables,Psychometrika, 45, 289–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. (1987). Total, direct, and indirect effects in structural equation models. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.),Sociological Methodology (pp. 37–69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. IN K. G. Jöreskog and H. Wold (Eds.),Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Part 1) (pp. 149–173). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boomsma, A. (1983).On the robustness of LISREL (maximum likelihood estimation) against small sample size and non-normality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen.

  • Boomsma, A. (1985). Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in LISREL maximum likelihood estimation.Psychometrika, 50, 229–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boomsma, A. (1986). On the use of bootstrap and jackknife in covariance analysis.Compstat: Proceedings of the International Association for Statistical Computing. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box, G. E. P., & Muller, M. E. (1958). A note on the generation of random normal deviates.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29, 610–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W. (1968). A comparison of factor analytic techniques.Psychometrika, 33, 267–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W. (1974). Generalized least squares estimators in the analysis of covariance structures.South African Statistical Journal, 8, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W. (1982). Covariance structures. In D. M. Hawkins (Ed.),Topics in applied multivariate analysis (pp. 72–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotic distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D. (1970). Douncan's corrections of published text of “Peer influences on aspirations: A reinterpretation”.American Journal of Sociology, 76, 1042–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D. (1975).Introduction to structural equation models. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D., Featherman, D. L., & Duncan, B. (1972).Socioeconomic background and achievement. New York: Seminar Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D., Haller, A. O., & Portes, A. (1968). Peer influences on aspirations: A reinterpretation.American Journal of Sociology, 74, 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife.The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folmer, N. (1981). Measurement of the effects of regional policy instruments by means of linear structural equation models and panel data.Environment and Planning, 13, 1435–1448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. (1984).Linear statistical models and related methods with applications. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. (1985). Effect analysis in structural equation models: Calculation of specific indirect effects.Sociological Methods and Research, 14, 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. H. (1982).The implementation of effect decomposition methods for two general structural covariance modeling systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1987). Improper solutions in the analysis of covariance structures: Their interpretability and a comparison of alternate respecifications.Psychometrika, 52, 99–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graff, J., & Schmidt, P. (1982). A general model for decomposition of effects. In K. G. Jöreskog and H. Wold (Eds.),Systems under indirect observation, Part I (pp. 131–148). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, L. L. (1985).Behavior of some elliptical theory estimators with nonnormal data in a covariance structures framework: A Monte Carlo study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1982). Recent developments in structural equation modeling.Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 404–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1986).LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least square methods. Chicago, IL: International Educational Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, A. W., & Kelton, W. D. (1982).Simulation modeling and analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1978). A simple comprehensive model for the analysis of covariance structures.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 31, 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. (1968). Data analysis, including statistics. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),Revised handbook of social psychology (Chapter 10). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell, P. L., & Feiveson, A. H. (1966). A numerical procedure to generate a sample covariance matrix.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61, 199–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quenouille, M. H. (1956). Notes on bias in estimation.Biometrika, 48, 433–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, C. R. (1973).Linear statistical inference and its applications (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, L. (1979). A more portable random number generator.ACM Transaction Software, 5, 132–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. B., & Hocking, R. R. (1972). Wishart variate generator. Algorithm AS53.Applied Statistics, 21, 341–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.),Sociological methodology (pp. 290–313). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. In N. B. Tuma (Ed.),Sociological methodology (pp. 159–186). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1987). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models.Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 155–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. A. (1985). CINDESE: Computing indirect effects and their standard errors.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 601–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. A. (1987).The robustness of indirect effects estimated in the Jöreskog-Keesling-Wiley covariance structure model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tuscon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, A. J. (1975). A class of factor analytic estimation procedures with common asymptotic sampling properties.Psychometrika, 40, 315–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, J. S., & Bentler, P. M. (1985). Quasi-likelihood estimation in asymptotically efficient covariance structure models.1984 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section, 658–662.

  • Zehna, P. W. (1966). Invariance of maximum likelihood estimation.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 37, 755.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

For helpful comments on a previous draft of this paper, we are grateful to Gerhard Arminger, Clifford C. Clogg, and several anonymous reviewers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stone, C.A., Sobel, M.E. The robustness of estimates of total indirect effects in covariance structure models estimated by maximum. Psychometrika 55, 337–352 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295291

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295291

Key words

Navigation