Latent variable interaction in structural equation models
Woods, Michael Dean
This item is only available for download by members of the University of Illinois community. Students, faculty, and staff at the U of I may log in with your NetID and password to view the item. If you are trying to access an Illinois-restricted dissertation or thesis, you can request a copy through your library's Inter-Library Loan office or purchase a copy directly from ProQuest.
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/20065
Description
Title
Latent variable interaction in structural equation models
Author(s)
Woods, Michael Dean
Issue Date
1996
Doctoral Committee Chair(s)
Jones, Lawrence
Department of Study
Psychology
Discipline
Psychology
Degree Granting Institution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree Name
Ph.D.
Degree Level
Dissertation
Keyword(s)
Statistics
Psychology, Psychometrics
Language
eng
Abstract
This study investigated moderated regression analysis using latent variables. Interactive psychological theories, the stress-buffering hypothesis, and interaction in regression and structural equation models, were reviewed. Moderated regression was recast using latent variables to accommodate measurement error. Three methods of fitting the latent variable interaction (LVI) model were studied: (1) Factor Score Regression (FSR) treats factor score estimates for latent variables, and their product, as predictors. (2) Kenny and Judd's (1984) Product Indicators Approach (PIA) defines an interaction latent variable whose indicators are cross-products of indicators of the additive predictors. (3) McDonald's (1993) Nonlinear Factor Analysis (NOFA) treats the latent predictors as fixed factors, and estimates model parameters and factor scores simultaneously. FSR was shown to be scale invariant, but not origin invariant (indicators with zero and nonzero means yielded different solutions). PIA was neither scale nor origin invariant. NOFA was scale and origin invariant. The methods were compared in a simulation study, controlling for Sample Size (SS), Communality Ratio (CR) or reliability, and Interaction Coefficient (IC) magnitude. The performance ordering, in terms of parameter recovery, was NOFA, PIA, FSR. All methods tended to recover $\rm\beta\sb{43(int)}$, the interaction coefficient, better as SS and CR increased, but worse as IC increased. For FSR, SS interacted with IC (as SS increased, recovery improved only at low IC) and CR (recovery improved only at high CR). Also, IC and CR interacted (recovery declined as IC increased, with steeper decline as CR decreased). For PIA and NOFA, SS and IC interacted (recovery improved as SS increased, with stronger improvement as IC increased). R$\rm\sb{cha}\sp2$ was shown to be unsuitable for testing LVI. For FSR and NOFA, recovery declined as CR increased. PIA and NOFA yielded negative R$\rm\sb{cha}\sp2$ estimates. To demonstrate hypothesis testing, jackknifed standard errors were obtained for data from a study of stress-buffering. No FSR estimates were significant. It was shown that FSR under-estimated coefficients, and that PIA or NOFA might have demonstrated significant effects. However, PIA did not converge, and NOFA estimates converged to starting values, suggesting a problem with the NOFA software. Findings were summarized in terms of their relevance for applied researchers.
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
