Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T05:19:24.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moment Testing for Interaction Terms in Structural Equation Modeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ab Mooijaart  and
Albert Satorra
Ab Mooijaart*
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Albert Satorra
Affiliation:
Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Barcelona GSE
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Ab Mooijaart, Institute of Psychology, Unit Methodology and Statistics, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB, Leiden, the Netherlands. E-mail: Mooijaart@Fsw.LeidenUniv.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Starting with Kenny and Judd (Psychol. Bull. 96:201–210, 1984) several methods have been introduced for analyzing models with interaction terms. In all these methods more information from the data than just means and covariances is required. In this paper we also use more than just first- and second-order moments; however, we are aiming to adding just a selection of the third-order moments. The key issue in this paper is to develop theoretical results that will allow practitioners to evaluate the strength of different third-order moments in assessing interaction terms of the model. To select the third-order moments, we propose to be guided by the power of the goodness-of-fit test of a model with no interactions, which varies with each selection of third-order moments. A theorem is presented that relates the power of the usual goodness-of-fit test of the model with the power of a moment test for the significance of third-order moments; the latter has the advantage that it can be computed without fitting a model. The main conclusion is that the selection of third-order moments can be based on the power of a moment test, thus assessing the relevance in the analysis of different sets of third-order moments can be computationally simple. The paper gives an illustration of the method and argues for the need of refraining from adding into the analysis an excess of higher-order moments.

Keywords

structural equation modelinggoodness-of-fit testingmoment testthird-order momentsinteraction termsequivalent modelssaturated model

Information

Type
Article
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 65 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Boomsma, A., Hoogland, J.J. (2001). The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited. In Cudeck, R., du Toit, S., Sörbom, D. (Eds.), Structural equation models: Present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 139–168). Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Browne, M.W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jöreskog, K.G., Yang, F. (1996). Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny–Judd model with interaction effects. In Marcoulides, R.E., Schumacker, G.A. (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 57–88). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kenny, D.A., Judd, C.M. (1984). Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of latent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, A.G. (2007). QuasiML (Version 3.10) [Computer software]. Champaign, Il, Author.Google Scholar
Klein, A.G., Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, A.G., Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2010). Introduction of a new measure for detecting poor fit due to omitted nonlinear terms in SEM. Advances in Statistical Analysis, 94, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.-Y. (2007). Structural equation modeling: A Bayesian approach, West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.Y., Zhu, H.T. (2002). Maximum likelihood estimation of nonlinear structural equation models. Psychometrika, 67, 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, J.R., Neudecker, H. (1999). Matrix differential calculus with applications in statistics and econometrics, (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Marsh, H.W., Wen, Z., Hau, K.-T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijer, E. (2005). Matrix algebra for higher order moments. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 410, 112–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooijaart, A., Bentler, P.M. (2010). An alternative approach for non-linear latent variable models. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooijaart, A., Satorra, A. (2009). On insensitivity of the chi-square model test to non-linear misspecification in structural equation models. Psychometrika, 74, 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, L.K., Muthén, B.O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide, (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Neyman, J., Scott, E.L. (1948). Consistent estimation from partially consistent observations. Econometrica, 16, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A. (1989). Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach. Psychometrika, 54(1), 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A. (1992). Asymptotic robust inferences in the analysis of mean and covariance structures. Sociological Methodology, 22, 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A. (2003). Power of chi-square goodness-of-fit test in structural equation models: The case of non-normal data. In Yanai, H., Okada, A., Shigemasu, K., Kano, Y., Meulman, J.J. (Eds.), New developments of psychometrics (pp. 57–68). Tokyo: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schott, J.R. (1997). Matrix analysis for statistics, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wall, M.M., Amemiya, Y. (2000). Estimation for polynomial structural equation models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 26, 1–29.Google Scholar
Wall, M.M., Amemiya, Y. (2007). Nonlinear structural equation modeling as a statistical method. Handbook of computing and statistics with applications, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar