IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/thesis/xef3g.html

Comparison between Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Estimation in Structural Equation Modelling and Effects of Informative Priors

Author

Listed:
  • Chonu, Gi Kunchana

Abstract

The aims of this study are to compare the maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods for estimation in structural equation modelling in real large data sets with different degrees of multivariate non-normality and to investigate the effects of non-informative and informative priors on parameter estimates in Bayesian structural equation modelling. Two data sets from the British Household Panel Survey are taken for the analyses, with total respondents of 6,522 and 7,150. In each of them, eighteen questions are drawn to be indicators for seven latent variables. In this dissertation, three separate hypothesised models are constructed in order to increase a variety of multivariate non-normality degrees; these are Models A, B and C. The research findings provided from classical structural equation modelling show that Model A and Model B are well fitted with a non-significant chi-square statistic at a bootstrap probability of more than 0.05, while Model C is also reasonably fitted with a significant chi-square statistic at a bootstrap probability of just below 0.05. The comparative fit indices in all models illustrate very high values; additionally, the root mean square error of approximation values are rather low. Furthermore, all estimated parameters are significant at a p-value of 0.001 and there are no zero values lying between their bootstrap confidence intervals. Under the multivariate non-normal condition, maximum likelihood estimators seem to lose their efficiency property, but not by much, and are robust to violation due to the large sample size. As for the findings from Bayesian structural equation modelling, all the estimated parameters of the three models are also significant. When incorporated with non-informative priors, the estimates and their standard errors are equivalent to the ones yielded by classical structural equation modelling. On the other hand, the parameters generated with informative priors vary according to the prior means but the standard errors are diminished consistently for all estimates, in comparison with the ones provided from classical structural equation modelling and Bayesian structural equation modelling with non-informative priors. The posterior distributions after being updated by the informative priors appear to be more normal owing to a decrease in skewness and kurtosis; moreover, the ones produced from Model B, which has the highest non-normality, are most affected by the informative priors according to the change in skewness and kurtosis.

Suggested Citation

  • Chonu, Gi Kunchana, 2013. "Comparison between Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Estimation in Structural Equation Modelling and Effects of Informative Priors," Thesis Commons xef3g, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:thesis:xef3g
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/xef3g
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6088b69d7166fa01e9e8c1ce/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/xef3g?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. Laura Bogart & Rebecca Collins & Phyllis Ellickson & David Klein, 2007. "Are Adolescent Substance Users Less Satisfied with Life as Young Adults and if so, Why?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(1), pages 149-169, March.
    2. Jana Weerasinghe & Lorne Tepperman, 1994. "Suicide and happiness: Seven tests of the connection," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 199-233, July.
    3. Ed Diener & Carol Nickerson & Richard Lucas & Ed Sandvik, 2002. "Dispositional Affect and Job Outcomes," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 229-259, September.
    4. Luca Zanin, 2013. "Detecting Unobserved Heterogeneity in the Relationship Between Subjective Well-Being and Satisfaction in Various Domains of Life Using the REBUS-PLS Path Modelling Approach: A Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 281-304, January.
    5. Richard Paap, 2002. "What are the advantages of MCMC based inference in latent variable models?," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 56(1), pages 2-22, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:osf:thesis:xef3g_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. De Neve, Jan-Emmanuel & Oswald, Andrew J., 2012. "Estimating the influence of life satisfaction and positive affect on later income using sibling fixed-effects," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51523, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Rose, Damaris & Stavrova, Olga, 2019. "Does life satisfaction predict reemployment? Evidence form German panel data," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Marcin Piekałkiewicz, 2017. "Why do economists study happiness?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 28(3), pages 361-377, September.
    5. Alan B. Krueger & Daniel Kahneman & David Schkade & Norbert Schwarz & Arthur A. Stone, 2009. "National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations: National Accounts of Time Use and Well-Being, pages 9-86, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Simon Davies & Tim Hinks, 2010. "Crime and Happiness Amongst Heads of Households in Malawi," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 457-476, August.
    7. Geiger, Ben Baumberg & MacKerron, George, 2016. "Can alcohol make you happy? A subjective wellbeing approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 184-191.
    8. O’Leary, Nigel & Li, Ian W. & Gupta, Prashant & Blackaby, David, 2020. "Wellbeing trajectories around life events in Australia," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 499-509.
    9. Clingingsmith, David, 2016. "Negative emotions, income, and welfare: Causal estimates from the PSID," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-19.
    10. repec:osf:socarx:q2mxt_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Edsel L. Beja, 2018. "The U-shaped relationship between happiness and age: evidence using world values survey data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1817-1829, July.
    12. Xiaoqin Zhu & Daniel T. L. Shek, 2020. "The Influence of Adolescent Problem Behaviors on Life Satisfaction: Parent–Child Subsystem Qualities as Mediators," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 13(5), pages 1767-1789, October.
    13. Vica Tendenan & Richard Gerlach & Chao Wang, 2020. "Tail risk forecasting using Bayesian realized EGARCH models," Papers 2008.05147, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    14. Janusz Czapiński, 2015. "Individual quality of life and lifestyle," Contemporary Economics, Vizja University, vol. 9(4), December.
    15. De Neve, Jan-Emmanuel & Diener, Ed & Tay, Louis & Xuereb, Cody, 2013. "The objective benefits of subjective well-being," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51669, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Xiwen Fu, 2018. "The Contextual Effects of Political Trust on Happiness: Evidence from China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 491-516, September.
    17. Daniela Pradenas & Juan Carlos Oyanedel & Silvia da Costa & Andrés Rubio & Dario Páez, 2021. "Subjective Well-Being and Its Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Correlates in High Performance Executives: A Study in Chilean Managers Empirically Revisiting the Bifactor Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-17, July.
    18. Luca Zanin & Rosalba Radice & Giampiero Marra, 2013. "Estimating the Effect of Perceived Risk of Crime on Social Trust in the Presence of Endogeneity Bias," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 523-547, November.
    19. Xiaoqin Zhu & Daniel T. L. Shek, 2021. "Problem Behavior and Life Satisfaction in Early Adolescence: Longitudinal Findings in a Chinese Context," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 2889-2914, October.
    20. Joar Vittersø & Yngvil Søholt & Audun Hetland & Irina Thoresen & Espen Røysamb, 2010. "Was Hercules Happy? Some Answers from a Functional Model of Human Well-being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 1-18, January.
    21. Martin Burda & Roman Liesenfeld & Jean-Francois Richard, 2008. "Bayesian Analysis of a Probit Panel Data Model with Unobserved Individual Heterogeneity and Autocorrelated Errors," Working Papers tecipa-321, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    22. Alan B. Krueger & Daniel Kahneman & David Schkade & Norbert Schwarz & Arthur A. Stone, 2009. "National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations: National Accounts of Time Use and Well-Being, pages 9-86, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:osf:thesis:xef3g. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://thesiscommons.org .

    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.