However, in applied work, structural equation models are most often represented graphically. Here is a graphical example of a structural equation model:
For more information, click on an element of this diagram, or choose from this list: Latent Constructs | Structural Model | Structural Error | Manifest Variables | Measurement Model | Measurement Error |
This diagram uses the dominant symbolic language in the SEM world. However, there are alternate forms, including the " RAM," reticular action model.
A structural equation model may include two types of latent constructs--exogenous and endogenous. In the most traditional system, exogenous constructs are indicated by the Greek character "ksi" (at left)
and endogenous constructs are indicated by the Greek character "eta" (at right). These two types of constructs are distinguished on the basis of whether or not they are dependent variables in any equation in the system of equations represented by the model. Exogenous constructs are independent variables in all equations in which they appear, while endogenous constructs are dependent variables in at least one equation--although they may be independent variables in other equations in the system. In graphical terms, each endogenous construct is the target of at least one one-headed arrow, while exogenous constructs are only targeted by two-headed arrows.
Parameters representing regression relations between latent constructs are typically labeled with the Greek character "gamma" (at left) for the regression of an endogenous construct on an exogenous construct, or with the Greek character "beta" (at right) for the regression of one endogenous construct on another endogenous construct.
Typically in SEM, exogenous constructs are allowed to covary freely. Parameters labeled with the Greek character "phi" (at left) represent these covariances. This covariance comes from common predictors of the exogenous constructs which lie outside the model under consideration.
(Sometimes, however, it makes more sense to model a latent construct as the result or consequence of its measures. This is the causal indicators model. This alternative measurement model is also central to Partial Least Squares, a methodology related to SEM.)
However, when a construct is associated with only a single measure, it is usually impossible (due to the limits of identification) to estimate the amount of measurement error within the model. In such cases, the researcher must prespecify the amount of measurement error before attempting to estimate model parameters. In this situation, researchers may be tempted to simply assume that there is no measurement error. However, if this assumption is false, then model parameter estimates will be biased.
Lecture Notes: Structural equation model
ABSTRACT:
Using a structural equation model, this article demonstrates a novel approach to studying the distribution of class-based political power in advanced capitalist democracies. Situated within a theoretical discussion of pluralism and class dominant theories of political power, the article begins with a critique of the literature’s existing measurements of political democracy. After showing the limitations of these indices, particularly their inability to measure the distribution of class-based political power over time, the article then presents an alternative measurement of democratic governance, one that is consistent with the general thrust of class dominant perspectives in sociology. The results of a structural equations model shows that, within the advanced capitalist democracies, class compromise manifests in a country’s prevailing rates of union density, voter participation, incarceration, and income inequality. Finally, applying this model to individual countries, the article ends by creating an index of class compromise for 15 advanced capitalist democracies from 1980 to 1999.
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-3-5 3:06:43编辑过]
[求助]Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques Edited by George A. Marcoulides California State University, Fullerton Randall E. Schumaker University of North Texas |
Structural equation models are used by biologists, educational and medical researchers, psychologists, social scientists, and others who traditionally deal with nonexperimental and quasi-experimental data. Perhaps the most important and influential statistical revolution to have recently occurred in the scientific arena, the development of structural equation models has provided researchers with a comprehensive method for the quantification and testing of theories.
Accepted today as a major component of applied multivariate analysis, structural equation modeling includes latent variables, measurement errors in both dependent and independent variables, multiple indicators, reciprocal causation, simultaneity, and interdependence. As implemented in most commercial computer packages—Amos, EQS, LISREL, LISCOMP, Mx, SAS PROC-CALIS, STATISTICA-SEPATH—the method includes as special cases such procedures as confirmatory factor analysis, multiple regression, path analysis, models for time-dependent data, recursive and non-recursive models for cross-sectional and longitudinal data, and covariance structure analysis.
This volume introduces the latest issues and developments in structural equation modeling techniques. By focusing primarily on the application of structural equation modeling techniques in example cases and situations, it provides an understanding and working knowledge of advanced structural equation modeling techniques with a minimum of mathematical derivations. This didactic approach allows readers to better understand the underlying logic of advanced structural equation modeling techniques and thereby to effectively assess the suitability of the method for their own research. The volume was written for a broad audience crossing many disciplines, and makes the assumption that readers have mastered the equivalent of graduate level multivariate statistics courses that include coverage of introductory structural equation modeling techniques.
Researchers and practitioners throughout education and the social sciences; a supplemental text for courses in SEM modeling and multivariate statistics.
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-3-5 4:57:15编辑过]
Testing Structural Equation Models Edited by Kenneth A. Bollen University of North Carolina J. Scott Long Indiana University |
"This book is a valuable adjunct to the extant literature on specification, estimation, and identification. My overall impression is that this volume is indispensable for those wishing to keep current with this fast-moving field. I recommend that this book be used as a supplementary text in a graduate-level course in structural equation modeling. This book . . . provides students with the necessary literature for a broad understanding of structural equation modeling."
— Structural Equation Modeling
"This book is worth its weight in gold! Drawing on the expertise of key researchers in the field, Bollen and Long provide readers with a comprehensive review of the critical issues, as well as innovative approaches that address these issues in the fitting, estimating, and testing of structural equation models. The book is an absolute 'must' for all researchers interested in conducting sound structural equation modeling applications."
— Barbara M. Byrne, Department of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ontario
"This collection of papers, so nicely written for and edited by Professors Bollen and Long, presents the 'state of the art' in significance testing and goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. The coverage of topics is almost as impressive as the set of authors--nearly all the methodological leaders in this important and quite active research area have helped make this volume an immediate classic. It should be used as a text in graduate-level courses on structural equation models to augment the standard textbooks. The editors are to be praised for lending their own expertise and for taking the time to put this excellent collection together."
— Stanley Wasserman, Departments of Psychology and Statistics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
What is the role of fit measures when respecifying a model? Should the means of the sampling distributions of a fit index be unrelated to the size of the sample? Is it better to estimate the statistical power of the chi-square test than to turn to fit indices? Aimed at exploring these and other related questions, this group of well-known scholars examines the methods of testing structural equation models (SEMS) with and without measurement error—as estimated by such programs as EQS, LISREL, and CALIS. Highly integrated and valuable, this book is a must for every researcher's shelf, particularly with coverage like: testing structural equation models, multifaceted conceptions of fit, Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fit indices, specification tests for the linear regression model, bootstrapping goodness of fit measures, bayesian model selection, alternative ways of assessing model fit, power evaluations, goodness of fit with categorical and other non-normal variables, new covariance structure model improvement statistics, and nonpositive definite matrices.
This course is designed as an applied course in Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) for existing users of SEM software such as AMOS, EQS*, and/or LISREL. Introductory courses typically look at three types of Structural Equation Models, namely: (i) causal models for directly observed variables, (ii) measurement models and confirmatory factor analysis, and (iii) structural models with latent variables. However, many other models can be tested with SEM. Such models are investigated in this applied course.
The course is divided into four parts. Part 1 begins with revision of a number of issues related to fitting Structural Equation Models. These issues include: model identification, ML versus ADF/WLS estimation; assessing model fit (including the Satorra-Bentler x2 and robust standard errors); and dealing with problem data and difficult models (including missing data, small samples, ordinal and/or dichotomous variables, non-normal data, constraining parameters, non-positive definite matrices, negative error variances, unidentified and inadmissible models and recognising equivalent models). Part II covers a number of types of models not normally covered in an introductory class including multi-group analysis and analyses of interactions with categorical moderator variables, analyses with interactions amongst continuous variables, mean structure analysis, latent class analysis and bootstrapping. This part of the course will also introduce students to the concept of longitudinal analysis and latent growth curve modelling. We begin with an introduction to the use of multilevel models to analyse data from hierarchically structured populations/samples (e.g., voters within electorates, cases within groups within areas, students within classes within schools, etc.), or longitudinal studies (repeated measures clustered within individuals within groups). This is then extended into multilevel structural equation modelling. Part IV of the course provides an opportunity for participants to work on the analysis of their own data. Participants are encouraged to bring a data set with them, although this is not essential since other data sets will be made available.
Participants will be provided with instruction and practical experience to estimate parameters implied by the various types of Structural Equation Models using a combination of AMOS, EQS* and LISREL. Detailed notes with worked examples and references will be provided as a basis for both the lecture and hands-on computing aspect of the course.
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-3-5 3:33:19编辑过]
M11 Structural Equation Modelling
Aims and Learning Outcomes
Course Convenor Dr Chris Fife Schaw
Other Contributors
Contact Hours 20
Level Masters
Required Prerequisite Study UG level statistics, preparatory suggested reading.
Route/Pathway/Field Requirements, Levels, Modules, Credits, Awards
Completion of the module (and the acquisition of 15 course credits) requires a total of 20 contact hours in the form of lectures and computer practicals. Students are also required to invest a minimum of 130 hours of study time in completion of the module.
Course Content and Schedule
ASSESSMENTS
Unseen short answer exam of six questions to be answered in 1 hour. (50% of total mark)
Practical report. Each student is supplied with data and required to test a theoretical model with LISREL, then report it. (50% of total mark)
Suggested Reading
Students should attempt to read the introductory sections of one of the following prior to Week 1. Use the above weekly contents/topics to read relevant chapters in advance of the lectures.
Tabachnik, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed). New York: Harper Collins (chapter by Ullman is a good general overview of SEM and it compares the computer packages).
Maruyama, G.M. (1997). Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Hayduk, L.A. (1987) Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University Press.
SEMNET + LISREL
Students can look up the web page of SEMNET (http://www.gsu.edu/~mkteer/semnet.html) which contains answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) and details of how to join its e-mail based discussion group. You can download a free ‘student’ copy of LISREL from http://www.ssicentral.com . It has some limitations but you should get your own copy for when you work away from the Dept.
![]() | |||
![]() |
|
![]() |
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-3-5 6:27:25编辑过]
Structural Equation Modeling:Foundations and Extensions Authored by David Kaplan
|
Description: "This is a thorough and sophisticated treatment of structural equation modeling (SEM). The book assumes a strong background in statistics and matrix algebra. The author clearly is knowledgeable and has put much thought into the pros and cons of standard applications of SEM. The chapters on multilevel and growth modeling are an excellent feature of the book." --Rick H. Hoyle, University of Kentucky Through the use of detailed, empirical examples, this exciting book presents an advanced treatment of the foundations of structural equation modeling (SEM) and demonstrates how SEM can provide a unique lens on problems in the social and behavioral sciences. The author begins with an introduction to recursive and non-recursive models, estimation, testing, and the problem of measurement in observed variables. Kaplan then explores the issue of group differences in structural models, statistical assumptions in structural modeling (from sampling to missing data and specification error), the assessment of statistical power and model modification in the context of model evaluation, and SEM applied to complex data structures such as those obtained from clustered random sampling. The book concludes with a discussion of recent developments in latent variable growth curve modeling and a critique of the conventional practice of structural modeling in light of recent developments in econometric modeling. Features/Benefits: - Shows how SEM can be used to answer substantive questions by weaving a small set of substantive examples throughout the book - Explains recent developments in structural equation modeling applied to complex sampling, such as multilevel SEM and latent variable growth - Provides a critique of the standard practice of structural equation modeling throughout the book and discusses an alternative approach in light of recent developments in econometric modeling. |
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-3-5 4:56:29编辑过]
On the use of structural equation models for marketing modeling
Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp1, ,
, , a, , b and Hans Baumgartnerc a Department of Marketing, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, Netherlands b Department of Marketing, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands c Smeal College of Business Administration, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA Available online 14 November 2000.
We reflect on the role of structural equation modeling (SEM) in marketing modeling and managerial decision making. We discuss some benefits provided by SEM and alert marketing modelers to several recent developments in SEM in three areas: measurement analysis, analysis of cross-sectional data, and analysis of longitudinal data.
Author Keywords: Marketing modeling; Structural equation modeling; Latent curve modeling; Managerial decision making; Time-series analysis
Ronald D. Anderson , a, 1 and Gyula Vastag
,
, b a Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 801 West Michigan Street, BS4053, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5151, USA b Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 801 West Michigan Street, BS4027, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5151, USA Received 1 July 2002; accepted 26 November 2002. Available online 20 February 2004.
This paper uses the relationships between three basic, fundamental and proven concepts in manufacturing (resource commitment to improvement programs, flexibility to changes in operations, and customer delivery performance) as the empirical context for reviewing and comparing two casual modeling approaches (structural equation modeling and Bayesian networks). Specifically, investments in total quality management (TQM), process analysis, and employee participation programs are considered as resource commitments. The paper begins with the central issue of the requirements for a model of associations to be considered causal. This philosophical issue is addressed in reference to probabilistic causation theory. Then, each method is reviewed in the context of a unified causal modeling framework consistent with probabilistic causation theory and applied to a common dataset. The comparisons include concept representation, distribution and functional assumptions, sample size and model complexity considerations, measurement issues, specification search, model adequacy, theory testing and inference capabilities. The paper concludes with a summary of relative advantages and disadvantages of the methods and highlights the findings relevant to the literature on TQM and on-time deliveries.
Evaluating the importance of individual parameters in structural equation modeling: the need for type I error control
Robert A. Cribbie,
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 Received 23 March 1999; revised 5 August 1999; accepted 1 October 1999. Available online 17 May 2000.
The use of structural equation modeling in personality research has been increasing steadily over the past few decades. In evaluating the adequacy of a particular model researchers are often interested in evaluating not only the overall fit of the model, but also which of the proposed parameters are significant. Researchers who apply unrestricted post hoc model modifications, or who evaluate the significance of individual parameters without adopting some form of type I error control, risk capitalizing on chance. A Monte Carlo study was used to demonstrate the effectiveness of simple Bonferroni-type procedures for controlling the rate of type I errors when multiple parameters are evaluated in the structural portion of a theoretical model
D. A. Seminowicza, H. S. Mayberg, a,
,
, A. R. McIntosha, K. Goldapplea, S. Kennedyb, Z. Segalb and S. Rafi-Tarib a Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, Toronto, Ontario M6A 2E1, Canada b Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada Received 16 October 2003; Revised 13 December 2003; accepted 13 January 2004. Available online 22 April 2004.
This paper reports the results of an across lab metanalysis of effective connectivity in major depression (MDD). Using FDG PET data and Structural Equation Modeling, a formal depression model was created to explicitly test current theories of limbic–cortical dysfunction in MDD and to characterize at the path level potential sources of baseline variability reported in this patient population. A 7-region model consisting of lateral prefrontal cortex (latF9), anterior thalamus (aTh), anterior cingulate (Cg24), subgenual cingulate (Cg25), orbital frontal cortex (OF11), hippocampus (Hc), and medial frontal cortex (mF10) was tested in scans of 119 depressed patients and 42 healthy control subjects acquired during three separate studies at two different institutions. A single model, based on previous theory and supported by anatomical connectivity literature, was stable for the three groups of depressed patients. Within the context of this model, path differences among groups as a function of treatment response characteristics were also identified. First, limbic–cortical connections (latF9-Cg25-OF11-Hc) differentiated drug treatment responders from nonresponders. Second, nonresponders showed additional abnormalities in limbic–subcortical pathways (aTh-Cg24-Cg25-OF11-Hc). Lastly, more limited limbic–cortical (Hc-latF9) and cortical–cortical (OF11-mF10) path differences differentiated responders to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) from responders to pharmacotherapy. We conclude that the creation of such models is a first step toward full characterization of the depression phenotype at the neural systems level, with implications for the future development of brain-based algorithms to determine optimal treatment selection for individual patients.
Author Keywords: Human; Brain; Cingulate; Frontal; Hippocampus; Thalamus; Depression; Treatment; PET; FDG; Metabolism; Multivariate; Network; Structural equation modeling
Joel R. Quamme,
, a, Andrew P. Yonelinasa, b, Keith F. Widamana, Neal E. A. Krolla and Mary J. Sauvéc a Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA b Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, CA, USA c Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Davis, CA, USA Received 25 February 2003; revised 17 June 2003; accepted 30 September 2003. ; Available online 31 December 2003.
To test theories of explicit memory in amnesia, we examined the effect of hypoxia on memory performance in a group of 56 survivors of sudden cardiac arrest. Structural equation modeling revealed that a single-factor explanation of recall and recognition was insufficient to account for performance, thus contradicting single-process models of explicit memory. A dual-process model of recall in which two processes (e.g., declarative memory and controlled search) contribute to recall performance, whereas only one process (e.g., declarative memory) underlies recognition performance, also failed to explain the results adequately. In contrast, a dual-process model of recognition provided an acceptable account of the data. In this model, two processes—recollection and familiarity—underlie recognition memory, whereas only the recollection process contributes to free recall. The best-fitting model was one in which hypoxia and aging led to deficits in recollection, but left familiarity unaffected. Moreover, a controlled search process was correlated with recollection, but was not associated with familiarity or the severity of hypoxia. The results support models of explicit memory in which recollection depends on the hippocampus and frontal lobes, whereas familiarity-based recognition relies on other brain regions.
Author Keywords: Memory; Amnesia; Modeling; Recollection; Familiarity
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-3-5 6:30:30编辑过]
Larry J. Williams,
Jeffrey R. Edwards1Robert J. Vandenberg1 Center for the Advancement of Research Methods and Analysis (CARMA), Virginia Commonwealth University, 1015 Floyd Avenue, P.O. Box 844000, Richmond, VA 23284, USA University of North Carolina, USA University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Received 28 February 2003; revised 19 May 2003; accepted 21 May 2003. ; Available online 2 September 2003.
The purpose of this article is to review recent advanced applications of causal modeling methods in organizational and management research. Developments over the past 10 years involving research on measurement and structural components of causal models will be discussed. Specific topics to be addressed include reflective vs. formative measurement, multidimensional construct assessment, method variance, measurement invariance, latent growth modeling (LGM), moderated structural relationships, and analysis of latent variable means. For each of the areas mentioned above an overview of developments will be presented, and examples from organizational and management research will be provided.
Ernesto San Martín Department of Statistics, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile Accepted 19 May 2003. ; Available online 20 October 2003.
Structural equation modeling with Lisrel: application in tourism
Yvette Reisinger,
, a and Lindsay Turnerb a Tourism Program, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia b Department of Applied Economics, Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia Available online 4 May 1999.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is widely used in various disciplines. In the tourism discipline SEM has not been frequently applied. This paper explains the concept of SEM using the Lisrel (Linear Structural Equations) approach: its major purpose, application, types of models, steps involved in formulation and testing of models, and major SEM computer software packages and their advantages and limitations.
Author Keywords: Structural equation modeling; Lisrel; Tourism
Original Article
Results from the IQOLA Project
Susan D. Keller1, , John E. WareJr. 1, Peter M. Bentler2, Neil K. Aaronson3, Jordi Alonso4, Giovanni Apolone5, Jakob B. Bjorner6, John Brazier7, Monika Bullinger8, Stein Kaasa9, Alain Leplège10, Marianne Sullivan11 and Barbara Gandek1 1 Health Assessment Lab at the Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts USA 2 University of California, Los Angeles, California USA 3 Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 4 Health Services Research Unit, Institut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain 5 Dipartimento di Oncologia, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy 6 Institute of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 7 Sheffield Health Economics Group, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom 8 Abteilung Für Medizinische Psychologie, Universitätskrankenhaus Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany 9 Unit for Applied Clinical Research, The Norwegian University for Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway 10 Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) Unité 292, Hôpital de Bicêtre, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France 11 The Health Care Research Unit, Institute of Internal Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital and Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden Accepted 7 July 1998. Available online 30 March 1999.
A crucial prerequisite to the use of the SF-36 Health Survey in multinational studies is the reproduction of the conceptual model underlying its scoring and interpretation. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test these aspects of the construct validity of the SF-36 in ten IQOLA countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Data came from general population surveys fielded to gather normative data. Measurement and structural models developed in the United States were cross-validated in random halves of the sample in each country. SEM analyses supported the eight first-order factor model of health that underlies the scoring of SF-36 scales and two second-order factors that are the basis for summary physical and mental health measures. A single third-order factor was also observed in support of the hypothesis that all responses to the SF-36 are generated by a single, underlying construct—health. In addition, a third second-order factors, interpreted as general well-being, was shown to improve the fit of the model. This model (including eight first-order factors, three second-order factors, and one third-order factor) was cross-validated using a holdout sample within the United States and in each of the nine other countries. These results confirm the hypothesized relationships between SF-36 items and scales and justify their scoring in each country using standard algorithms. Results also suggest that SF-36 scales and summary physical and mental health measures will have similar interpretations across countries. The practical implications of a third second-order SF-36 factor (general well-being) warrant further study.
Author Keywords: Structural equation modeling; confirmatory factor analysis; cross-cultural comparison; health status indicators; SF-36 Health Survey; IQOLA
Index Terms: health survey; quality of life
Eight test statistics for multilevel structural equation models*1
Ke-Hai Yuan, a and Peter M. Bentler
,
, b a Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA b Departments of Psychology and Statistics, Institute of Psychology and Statistics, University of California, Box 951563, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, USA Received 7 November 2002. Available online 12 December 2002.
Data in social and behavioral sciences are often hierarchically organized though seldom normal. They typically contain heterogeneous marginal skewnesses and kurtoses. With such data, the normal theory based likelihood ratio statistic is not reliable when evaluating a multilevel structural equation model. Statistics that are not sensitive to sampling distributions are desirable. Six statistics for evaluating a structural equation model are extended from the conventional context to the multilevel context. These statistics are asymptotically distribution free, that is, their distributions do not depend on the sampling distribution when sample size at the highest level is large enough. The performance of these statistics in practical data analysis is evaluated with a Monte Carlo study simulating conditions encountered with real data. Results indicate that each of the statistics is very insensitive to the underlying sampling distributions even with finite sample sizes. However, the six statistics perform quite differently at smaller sample sizes; some over-reject the correct model and some under-reject the correct model. Comparing the six statistics with two existing ones in the multilevel context, two of the six new statistics are recommended for model evaluation in practice.
Author Keywords: Nonnormal data; Asymptotically distribution free statistics; Generalized estimating equation; Monte Carlo
Eun-Jin Yang and Walter Wilczynski Department of Psychology, Institute for Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78712 Received 17 September 2001; revised 1 February 2002; accepted 4 February 2002. Available online 28 September 2002.
We investigated the relationship between aggressive behavior and circulating androgens in the context of agonistic social interaction and examined the effect of this interaction on the androgen–aggression relationship in response to a subsequent social challenge in male Anolis carolinensis lizards. Individuals comprising an aggressive encounter group were exposed to an aggressive conspecific male for 10 min per day during a 5-day encounter period, while controls were exposed to a neutral stimulus for the same period. On the sixth day, their responses to an intruder test were observed. At intervals, individuals were sacrificed to monitor plasma androgen levels. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test three a priori interaction models of the relationship between social stimulus, aggressive behavior, and androgen. Model 1 posits that exposure to a social stimulus influences androgen and aggressive behavior independently. In Model 2, a social stimulus triggers aggressive behavior, which in turn increases circulating levels of androgen. In Model 3, exposure to a social stimulus influences circulating androgen levels, which in turn triggers aggressive behavior. During the 5 days of the encounter period, circulating testosterone (T) levels of the aggressive encounter group followed the same pattern as their aggressive behavioral responses, while the control group did not show significant changes in their aggressive behavior or T level. Our SEM results supported Model 2. A means analysis showed that during the intruder test, animals with 5 days of aggressive encounters showed more aggressive responses than did control animals, while their circulating androgen levels did not differ. This further supports Model 2, suggesting that an animal's own aggressive behavior may trigger increases in levels of plasma androgen.
Author Keywords: aggression; social experience; androgens; structural equation modeling; lizards
These pages are a brief compendium of resources for structural equation modeling, which subsumes both latent variable modeling (of which confirmatory factor analysis is one example) and also path analysis. If you haven’t already done so, you may wish to examine the more general statistics resources, including referrals to general stat-related Web sites and a list of stat packages that do regression, ANOVA, cluster analysis, factor analysis, etc. (If you own a Macintosh, click here for a complete discussion of statistics software for the Macintosh, as well as PowerMacintosh and FPU issues.) Please send me E-mail if you have any suggestions or additons.
Information maintained by the author includes:
Interesting collections of SEM-related information are provided from the perspective of specific disciplinary topics by the following individuals:
These pages also have a wide range of general information related to SEM. The following pages cover specific issues related to structural equations:
Only one journal (that I know of) covers SEM exclusively:
However, other journals that frequently cover structural equation models include:
Structural Equation Modeling and Multilevel Analysis Books |