Log-Linear Transformation of Binary Variables: A Suitable Input for SEM

In this paper, we study distributed estimation with wireless sensor networks (WSN) when channel estimation is imperfect. A robust distributed maximum likelihood (ML) estimator of the unknown parameter is proposed, which improves the performance of the traditional ML estimator with imperfect channel estimation. By maximizing the effective signal to noise ratio (SNR) at the fusion center (FC), we find that the optimal length of the training sequence is the square root of the length of the quantized observation at each node. Simulations are provided to evaluate the performance of the robust method and to validate the theoretical optimal length.

Structural equation models (SEMs) can be estimated using a variety of methods. For complete normally distributed data, two asymptotically efficient estimation methods exist: maximum likelihood (ML) and generalized least squares (GLS). With incomplete normally distributed data, an extension of ML called “full information” ML (FIML), is often the estimation method of choice. An extension of GLS to incomplete normally distributed data has never been developed or studied. In this article we define the “full information” GLS estimator for incomplete normally distributed data (FIGLS). We also identify and study an important application of the new GLS approach. In many modeling contexts, the variables in the SEM are linear composites (e.g., sums or averages) of the raw items. For instance, SEMs often use parcels (sums of raw items) as indicators of latent factors. If data are missing at the item level, but the model is at the composite level, FIML is not possible. In this situation, FIGLS may be the only asymptotically efficient estimator available. Results of a simulation study comparing the new FIGLS estimator to the best available analytic alternative, two-stage ML, with item-level missing data are presented.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is now a generic modeling framework for many multivariate techniques applied in the social and behavioral sciences. Many statistical models can be considered either as special cases of SEM or as part of the latent variable modeling framework. One popular extension is the use of SEM to conduct linear mixed-effects modeling (LMM) such as cross-sectional multilevel modeling and latent growth modeling. It is well known that LMM can be formulated as structural equation models. However, one main difference between the implementations in SEM and LMM is that maximum likelihood (ML) estimation is usually used in SEM, whereas restricted (or residual) maximum likelihood (REML) estimation is the default method in most LMM packages. This article shows how REML estimation can be implemented in SEM. Two empirical examples on latent growth model and meta-analysis are used to illustrate the procedures implemented in OpenMx. Issues related to implementing REML in SEM are discussed.

Calls for accountability, coupled with a desire to improve teaching and learning, have prompted many colleges and universities to consider ways of assessing the effects of postsecondary education on student growth and development. Despite widespread support for the concept of assessing student change, relatively few institutions have implemented this type of assessment, in part because of a concern about the best method of measuring change. This article describes the use of structural equation models with latent variables to assess the effects of education on change. Advantages of using structural equation models with latent variables include error-free measurement of change, direct tests of the assumptions underlying change research, along with the power and flexibility of maximum likelihood estimation. An analysis of data on freshman-to-senior gains provides evidence of the advantages of latent variable structural equation modeling and also suggests that the group differences identified by traditional analysis of variance and covariance techniques may be an artifact of measurement error.

The Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Best Linear Unbiased (BLU) estimators of the location and scale parameters of an extreme value distribution (Lawless [1982]) are compared under conditions of small sample sizes and Type I censorship. The comparisons were made in terms of the mean square error criterion. According to this criterion, the ML estimator of σ in the case of very small sample sizes (n < 10) and heavy censorship (low censoring time) proved to be more efficient than the corresponding BLU estimator. However, the BLU estimator for σ attains parity with the corresponding ML estimator when the censoring time increases even for sample sizes as low as 10. The BLU estimator of σ attains equivalence with the ML estimator when the sample size increases above 10, particularly when the censoring time is also increased. The situation is reversed when it came to estimating the location parameter μ, as the BLU estimator was found to be consistently more efficient than the ML estimator despite the improved performance of the ML estimator when the sample size increases. However, computational ease and convenience favor the ML estimators. Keywords: maximum likelihood estimatorsbest linear unbiased estimatorslife-testingreliability

Weighted least squares (WLS), weighted least squares mean-and-variance-adjusted (WLSMV), unweighted least squares mean-and-variance-adjusted (ULSMV), maximum likelihood (ML), robust maximum likelihood (MLR) and Bayesian estimation methods were compared in mixed item response type data via Monte Carlo simulation. The percentage of polytomous items, distribution of polytomous items, categories of polytomous items, average factor loading, sample size and test length conditions were manipulated. ULSMV and WLSMV were found to be the more accurate methods under all simulation conditions. All methods except WLS had acceptable relative bias and relative standard error bias. No method gives accurate results with small sample sizes and low factor loading, however, the ULSMV method can be recommended to researchers because it gives more appropriate results in all conditions.

The use of structural equation modeling (SEM), a second-generation multivariate analysis technique that determines the degree to which a theoretical model is supported by the sample data, is becoming increasingly popular in counseling research. SEM tests models that include both observed and latent variables, allowing the counseling researcher to confirm the factor structure of a newly developed or existing psychological instruments and to examine the plausibility of complex, theoretical counseling models. This article provides counseling researchers and practitioners with an overview of SEM and presents five steps for conducting SEM analysis in counseling research.

The past decade has seen a tremendous growth in the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) to address research questions in 2 subfields of behavioral science: cancer prevention and control (e.g., determinants of cancer screening adherence) and behavioral oncology (e.g., determinants of psychosocial adjustment among cancer patients or survivors). The application of SEM in these areas can have far-reaching implications for lowering cancer morbidity and mortality and for improving the psychological well-being and quality of life of those afflicted with, and recovering from, cancer. This article reviews the progress made in the application of SEM to cancer prevention and control and behavioral oncology research, highlighting 2 central uses: theory development and evaluation and scale construction. Directions for the future application of SEM to address research questions concerning cancer prevention and control and behavioral oncology are also discussed.

The Multiple Comparison Procedures with Modeling Techniques (MCP-Mod) framework has been recently approved by the U.S. Food, Administration, and European Medicines Agency as fit-for-purpose for phase II studies. Nonetheless, this approach relies on the asymptotic properties of Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimators, which might not be reasonable for small sample sizes. In this paper, we derived improved ML estimators and correction for their covariance matrices in the censored Weibull regression model based on the corrective and preventive approaches. We performed two simulation studies to evaluate ML and improved ML estimators with their covariance matrices in (i) a regression framework (ii) the Multiple Comparison Procedures with Modeling Techniques framework. We have shown that improved ML estimators are less biased than ML estimators yielding Wald-type statistics that controls type I error without loss of power in both frameworks. Therefore, we recommend the use of improved ML estimators in the MCP-Mod approach to control type I error at nominal value for sample sizes ranging from 5 to 25 subjects per dose.

The use of structural equation modelling has become increasingly common in the social and behavioural sciences. Based on a stochastic analysis of the multivariate density function of indicator variables, latent moderated structural Equations (LMS) implements iterative maximum likelihood estimation for the model parameters. K. A. Bollen developed a general method that makes use of the two stage least squares for structural equation models with nonlinear functions of latent variables. In structural equation modelling, the latent variables in the equation are usually linearly related. But in some cases, theory suggests that in addition to the linear effects a product of the latent predictor variables may have an additional effect on a latent criterion variable. In view of non-normality problems with latent interaction models, a stochastic analysis of the density functions involved by interaction models could provide a theoretical background for the development of efficient estimation methods and a better understanding of the major problems associated with latent interaction.

Latent variable models with many categorical items and multiple latent constructs result in many dimensions of numerical integration, and the traditional frequentist estimation approach, such as maximum likelihood (ML), tends to fail due to model complexity. In such cases, Bayesian estimation with diffuse priors can be used as a viable alternative to ML estimation. This study compares the performance of Bayesian estimation with ML estimation in estimating single or multiple ability factors across 2 types of measurement models in the structural equation modeling framework: a multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) model and a multiple-indicator multiple-cause (MIMIC) model. A Monte Carlo simulation study demonstrates that Bayesian estimation with diffuse priors, under various conditions, produces results quite comparable with ML estimation in the single- and multilevel MIRT and MIMIC models. Additionally, an empirical example utilizing the Multistate Bar Examination is provided to compare the practical utility of the MIRT and MIMIC models. Structural relationships among the ability factors, covariates, and a binary outcome variable are investigated through the single- and multilevel measurement models. The article concludes with a summary of the relative advantages of Bayesian estimation over ML estimation in MIRT and MIMIC models and suggests strategies for implementing these methods.

Latent growth models (LGMs) are an application of structural equation modeling and frequently used in developmental and clinical research to analyze change over time in longitudinal outcomes. Maximum likelihood (ML), the most common approach for estimating LGMs, can fail to converge or may produce biased estimates in complex LGMs especially in studies with modest samples. Bayesian estimation is a logical alternative to ML for LGMs, but there is a lack of research providing guidance on when Bayesian estimation may be preferable to ML or vice versa. This study compared the performance of Bayesian versus ML estimators for LGMs by evaluating their accuracy via Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. For the MC study, longitudinal data sets were generated and estimated using LGM via both ML and Bayesian estimation with three different priors, and parameter recovery across the two estimators was evaluated to determine their relative performance. The findings suggest that ML estimation is a reasonable choice for most LGMs, unless it fails to converge, which can occur with limiting data situations (i.e., just a few time points, no covariate or outcome, modest sample sizes). When models do not converge using ML, we recommend Bayesian estimation with one caveat that the influence of the priors on estimation may have to be carefully examined, per recent recommendations on Bayesian modeling for applied researchers.

The use of structural equation modelling (SEM) for research studies in construction related field has been on the increase over the years. The essence of this study is not to compare the level of usage of SEM with other modelling methods, neither is it to examine its extent of adoption in construction management - as this has been researched in previous works - but to arrive at a common ground for future construction related research works, based on the findings and recommendations from existing studies on the subject of SEM. Research materials within and outside the field of construction management were reviewed and it was discovered that SEM using AMOS (covariance approach) is the most appropriate method for construction research studies. This is not just because it is the most available of the software programs, but because of the numerous benefits and advantages highlighted from previous studies. The study also recommended appropriate sample size as well as cut-off value for various required goodness-of-fit tests of SEM model.

Robust estimation and confidence interval in meta-regression models

For a balanced two‐way mixed model, the maximum likelihood (ML) and restricted ML (REML) estimators of the variance components were obtained and compared under the non‐negativity requirements of the variance components by Lee and Kapadia (1984). In this note, for a mixed (random blocks) incomplete block model, explicit forms for the REML estimators of variance components are obtained. They are always non‐negative and have smaller mean squared error (MSE) than the analysis of variance (AOV) estimators. The asymptotic sampling variances of the maximum likelihood (ML) estimators and the REML estimators are compared and the balanced incomplete block design (BIBD) is considered as a special case. The ML estimators are shown to have smaller asymptotic variances than the REML estimators, but a numerical result in the randomized complete block design (RCBD) demonstrated that the performances of the REML and ML estimators are not much different in the MSE sense.