Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Experiments in Market Research Read chapter Read first chapter

2022 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Structural Equation Modeling

Authors : Hans Baumgartner, Bert Weijters

Published in: Handbook of Market Research

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter presents an overview of the process of structural equation modeling, involving the steps of model specification, model estimation, overall fit evaluation, model respecification, and local fit assessment (including interpreting the parameters of the model). Various extensions of the core structural equation model are described to enable more general representations of measurement and latent variable models as well as applications of the model to heterogeneous populations. An empirical example is provided to illustrate the process of structural equation modeling and to demonstrate some of the complexities that may arise in practical applications.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Modeling Marketing Dynamics Using Vector Autoregressive (VAR) Models
next chapter Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling
Literature
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.CrossRef
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York: Wiley.
Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Baumgartner, H., & Weijters, B. (2019). Measurement in marketing. Foundations and Trends® in Marketing, 12(4), 278–400.CrossRef
Baumgartner, H., & Weijters, B. (forthcoming). Dealing with common method variance in international marketing research. Journal of International Marketing. in press.
Bollen, K. A. (2011). Evaluating effect, composite, and causal indicators in structural equation models. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 359–372.CrossRef
Bollen, K. A. (2012). Instrumental variables in sociology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 37–72.CrossRef
Bollen, K. A. (2018). Model implied instrumental variables (MIIVs): An alternative orientation to structural equation modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54(1), 31–46.CrossRef
Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. Hoboken: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., Harden, J. J., Ray, S., & Zavisca, J. (2014). BIC and alternative Bayesian information criteria in the selection of structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(1), 1–19.CrossRef
Chapman, C., & Feit, E. M. D. (2019). R for marketing research and analytics (2nd ed.). Springer: Cham.CrossRef
Cortina, J. M., Markell-Goldstein, H. M., Green, J. P., & Chang, Y. (2021). How are we testing interactions in latent variable models? Surging forward or fighting shy? Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 26–54.CrossRef
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRef
Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Incorporating formative measures into covariance-based structural equation models. MIS Quarterly, 35(June), 335–358.CrossRef
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(May), 269–277.CrossRef
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1203–1218.CrossRef
Diop, E. B., Zhao, S., & Duy, T. V. (2019). An extension of the technology acceptance model for understanding travelers’ adoption of variable message signs. PLoS One, 14(4), e0216007.CrossRef
Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370–388.CrossRef
Fisher, Z. F., Bollen, K. A., Gates, K., & Ronkko, M. (2020). MlIVsem: Model implied instrumental variable (MIIV) estimation of structural equation models. R package version 0.5.5.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRef
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 205–218.CrossRef
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.CrossRef
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.CrossRef
Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1984). Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of latent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 201–210.CrossRef
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(December), 457–474.CrossRef
Kline, R. B. (2013). Reverse arrow dynamics: Feedback loops and formative measurement. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 39–76). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
MacCallum, R. C. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 107–120.CrossRef
MacCallum, R. C., & Browne, M. W. (1993). The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: Some practical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 533–541.CrossRef
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modification in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490–504.CrossRef
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.CrossRef
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730.CrossRef
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(June), 293–334.CrossRef
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104.CrossRef
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.CrossRef
Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110.CrossRef
McNeish, D. (2020). Should we use F-tests for model fit instead of chi-square in over-identified structural equation models? Organizational Research Methods, 23, 487–510.CrossRef
Muthén, B. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 1–33). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2011). Beyond multilevel regression modeling: Multilevel analysis in a general latent variable framework. In J. Hox & J. K. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of advanced multilevel analysis (pp. 15–40). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335.CrossRef
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599–620.CrossRef
Niemand, T., & Mai, R. (2018). Flexible cutoff values for fit indices in the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46, 1148–1172.CrossRef
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRef
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.CrossRef
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344.CrossRef
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, A. E., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354–373.CrossRef
Rhemtulla, M., van Bork, R., & Borsboom, D. (2020). Worse than measurement error: Consequences of inappropriate latent variable measurement models. Psychological Methods, 25(1), 30–45.CrossRef
Rönkko, M., McIntosh, C. N., Antonakis, J., & Edwards, J. R. (2016). Partial least squares path modeling: Time for some serious second thoughts. Journal of Operations Management, 47–48(November), 9–27.CrossRef
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.CrossRef
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.CrossRef
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in crossnational consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(June), 78–90.CrossRef
Sterba, S. K. (2011). Implications of parcel-allocation variability for comparing fit of item-solutions and parcel-solutions. Structural Equation Modeling, 18(4), 554–577.CrossRef
Sterba, S. K., & Pek, J. (2012). Individual influence on model selection. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 582–599.CrossRef
Sterba, S. K., & Rights, J. D. (2017). Effects of parceling on model selection: Parcel-allocation variability in model ranking. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 47–68.CrossRef
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(January), 4–69.CrossRef
Weijters, B., & Baumgartner, H. (2019). Analyzing Policy Capturing Data Using Structural Equation Modeling for Within-Subject Experiments (SEMWISE). Organizational Research Methods, 22(3), 623–648.CrossRef
Weijters, B., & Baumgartner, H. (forthcoming). On the use of balanced item parceling to counter acquiescence bias in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods. in press.
Wilcox, J. B., Howell, R. D., & Breivik, E. (2008). Questions about formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1219–1228.CrossRef
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934.CrossRef
Wooldridge, J. M. (2016). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (6th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Yang, M., Jiang, G., & Yuan, K.-H. (2018). The performance of ten modified rescaled statistics as the number of variables increases. Structural Equation Modeling, 25(3), 414–438.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Structural Equation Modeling
Authors
Hans Baumgartner
Bert Weijters
Copyright Year
2022
Book
Handbook of Market Research

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57411-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-57413-4

Copyright Year: 2022

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_14