IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v19y1990i1p67-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Model Search With TETRAD II and EQS

Author

Listed:
  • P. M. BENTLER

    (University of California, Los Angeles)

  • CHIH-PING CHOU

    (University of California, Los Angeles)

Abstract

The blind, forward-search procedure used by Spirtes, Scheines, and Glymour in their simulation study of computer-aided model specification with EQS does not represent a procedure that is recommended for use in practice, nor does it represent a procedure that is actually implemented by researchers in practice. Thus the implication of their results is unclear. Although TETRAD II represents an important development in procedures for searching for structural models that may be consistent with data, its relative performance under varying conditions, especially with much larger models, under other choices of weight and percentage criteria, and under other model structures is not known. The results on three of the nine models used in the simulation cannot be interpreted, because they do not give unique exact representations of the population covariance matrices: Alternative “true†models can be specified, and EQS and LISREL may have found these models. The differing output from the two procedures that were used, a set of models in TETRAD II, and a single model in EQS, does not permit a fair comparison between the methods. Some alternative methods are summarized.

Suggested Citation

  • P. M. Bentler & Chih-Ping Chou, 1990. "Model Search With TETRAD II and EQS," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 19(1), pages 67-79, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:19:y:1990:i:1:p:67-79
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124190019001002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124190019001002
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124190019001002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Albert Satorra & Willem Saris, 1985. "Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 83-90, March.
    2. James Steiger & Alexander Shapiro & Michael Browne, 1985. "On the multivariate asymptotic distribution of sequential Chi-square statistics," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 253-263, September.
    3. Albert Satorra, 1989. "Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 54(1), pages 131-151, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Montgomery, David B. & Roth, Aleda V. & Hausmann, Warren H., 2001. "Why Should Marketing and Manufacturing Work Together? Some Exploratory Empirical," Research Papers 1706, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ke-Hai Yuan & Peter Bentler, 2006. "Mean Comparison: Manifest Variable Versus Latent Variable," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 139-159, March.
    2. Ke-Hai Yuan & Peter M. Bentler & Wei Zhang, 2005. "The Effect of Skewness and Kurtosis on Mean and Covariance Structure Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 34(2), pages 240-258, November.
    3. Ke-Hai Yuan & Wai Chan, 2005. "On Nonequivalence of Several Procedures of Structural Equation Modeling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 791-798, December.
    4. Albert Satorra, 1989. "Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 54(1), pages 131-151, March.
    5. Yuan, Ke-Hai & Hayashi, Kentaro & Bentler, Peter M., 2007. "Normal theory likelihood ratio statistic for mean and covariance structure analysis under alternative hypotheses," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 98(6), pages 1262-1282, July.
    6. Chou, Chih-Ping & Bentler, P. M., 2002. "Model modification in structural equation modeling by imposing constraints," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 271-287, December.
    7. Claes Fornell & Youjae Yi, 1992. "Assumptions of the Two-Step Approach to Latent Variable Modeling," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(3), pages 291-320, February.
    8. Albert Satorra, 2015. "A Comment on a Paper by H. Wu and M. W. Browne (2014)," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 613-618, September.
    9. Patrick J. Curran & Kenneth A. Bollen & Feinian Chen & Pamela Paxton & James B. Kirby, 2003. "Finite Sampling Properties of the Point Estimates and Confidence Intervals of the RMSEA," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-252, November.
    10. Stanislav Kolenikov & Kenneth A. Bollen, 2012. "Testing Negative Error Variances," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(1), pages 124-167, February.
    11. Julia Grass & Florian Krieger & Philipp Paulus & Samuel Greiff & Anja Strobel & Alexander Strobel, 2019. "Thinking in action: Need for Cognition predicts Self-Control together with Action Orientation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Fetene B. Tekle & Dereje W. Gudicha & Jeroen K. Vermunt, 2016. "Power analysis for the bootstrap likelihood ratio test for the number of classes in latent class models," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 10(2), pages 209-224, June.
    13. Alberto Maydeu-Olivares & Rosa Montaño, 2013. "How Should We Assess the Fit of Rasch-Type Models? Approximating the Power of Goodness-of-Fit Statistics in Categorical Data Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 116-133, January.
    14. Linda Edelman & Helena Yli–Renko, 2010. "The Impact of Environment and Entrepreneurial Perceptions on Venture-Creation Efforts: Bridging the Discovery and Creation Views of Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 34(5), pages 833-856, September.
    15. Luengo, María Jesús & Obeso, María, 2013. "Efeito da hélice tríplice em desempenho de inovação," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 53(4), July.
    16. Randi Hammervold & Ulf Olsson, 2012. "Testing structural equation models: the impact of error variances in the data generating process," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1547-1570, August.
    17. Yli-Renko, H. & Autio, E. & Tontti, V., 2002. "Social capital, knowledge, and the international growth of technology-based new firms," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 279-304, June.
    18. Albert Satorra & Heinz Neudecker, 2015. "A Theorem on the Rank of a Product of Matrices with Illustration of Its Use in Goodness of Fit Testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 938-948, December.
    19. Dirk Lubbe, 2023. "Advantages of Using Unweighted Approximation Error Measures for Model Fit Assessment," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 413-433, June.
    20. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:19:y:1990:i:1:p:67-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.