Kino Aguilar
2012-Mar-23 04:48 UTC
[R] Fixing error variance in a path analysis to model measurement error in scales using sem package
Hi! I want to construct a path analysis model that can account for measurement error in totally aggregated parcels, which refer to parcels where all of the items in a scale are summed or averaged. If I am not mistaken, Bollen (1989) advocates the following formula for computing the error variance of each parcel: (1−α(parcel))×variance(parcel), such that α refers to Cronbach's alpha, which is a measure of reliability. What follows is the following path analysis model in theory (i.e., in practice the formulas are replaced with actual numbers): path.inf.final <- specifyModel() pRU -> sRU, test1 pRU -> rRU, test2 sRU -> rRU, test3 sRU -> power_alt, gam1 pRU -> power_alt, gam2 rRU -> power_alt, gam3 sRU -> ms_alt, gam7 pRU -> ms_alt, gam8 rRU -> ms_alt, gam9 sRU <-> sRU, NA, (1 - alpha(sRU))*(variance(sRU)) pRU <-> pRU, NA, (1 - alpha(pRU))*(variance(pRU)) rRU <-> rRU, NA, (1 - alpha(rRU))*(variance(rRU)) power_alt -> em, iota1 power_alt <-> power_alt, NA, (1 - alpha(power_alt))*(variance(power_alt)) ms_alt -> em, zeta1 ms_alt <-> ms_alt, NA, (1 - alpha(ms_alt))*(variance(ms_alt)) em -> relM1, eta1 em <-> em, NA, (1 - alpha(em))*(variance(em)) relM1 <-> relM1, lam1 After testing this model, the model fits were unnaceptable and package sem could not compute modification instances. In contrast, when I do not fix error variances, after a few modifications to the model, I am able to reach a theoretical cogent model that has acceptable model fits. I have several questions on this regard: 1. Am I understanding Bollen (1989) correctly and using the formula correctly in my path analysis model? 2. I also heard that rather than Bollen's formula, I could use alpha or alpha squared. Is this correct? If so, would it follow that I just input it into the model in much the same manner like I used Bollen's formula. I also tried this approach and reached unsatisfactory results. 3. The dependent variable in the path analysis model is binary and I could argue that there is no measurement error associated with it. How could I fix the error variance for this variable, i.e., relM1, such that the aforementioned is accounted for. Any help would be much appreciated. References: - Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Thank you!, ~Kino [[alternative HTML version deleted]]