Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Jul 2;39(1):327-355.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2009.01217.x.

Using Instrumental Variable (IV) Tests to Evaluate Model Specification in Latent Variable Structural Equation Models

Affiliations

Using Instrumental Variable (IV) Tests to Evaluate Model Specification in Latent Variable Structural Equation Models

James B Kirby et al. Sociol Methodol. .

Abstract

Structural Equation Modeling with latent variables (SEM) is a powerful tool for social and behavioral scientists, combining many of the strengths of psychometrics and econometrics into a single framework. The most common estimator for SEM is the full-information maximum likelihood estimator (ML), but there is continuing interest in limited information estimators because of their distributional robustness and their greater resistance to structural specification errors. However, the literature discussing model fit for limited information estimators for latent variable models is sparse compared to that for full information estimators. We address this shortcoming by providing several specification tests based on the 2SLS estimator for latent variable structural equation models developed by Bollen (1996). We explain how these tests can be used to not only identify a misspecified model, but to help diagnose the source of misspecification within a model. We present and discuss results from a Monte Carlo experiment designed to evaluate the finite sample properties of these tests. Our findings suggest that the 2SLS tests successfully identify most misspecified models, even those with modest misspecification, and that they provide researchers with information that can help diagnose the source of misspecification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Path diagram representation of Model 1 Note: numbers shown are unstandardized parameter values with standardized values in parenthesis; solid and dashed lines represent the population model structure, and dashed lines represent omitted parameters under model misspecification.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Path diagram representation of Model 2 Note: numbers shown are unstandardized parameter values with standardized values in parenthesis; solid and dashed lines represent the population model structure, and dashed lines represent omitted parameters under model misspecification.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Path diagram representation of Model 3. Note: numbers shown are unstandardized parameter values with standardized values in parenthesis; solid and dashed lines represent the population model structure, and dashed lines represent omitted parameters under model misspecification.

References

    1. Basmann RL. A Generalized Classical Method of Linear Estimation of Coefficients in a Structural Equation. Econometrica. 1957;25:77–83.
    1. Basmann RL. On finite sample distributions on generalized classical linear identifiability test statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1960;55:650–659.
    1. Baum Christopher F, Schaffer Mark E, Stillman Steven. Working Paper 545. Boston College Department of Economics; 2003. Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing.
    1. Bentler PM. EQS: Structural equations program manual, version 5.0. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software; 1995.
    1. Bollen Kenneth A. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley; 1989.

LinkOut - more resources