Parameter uncertainty in structural equation models: Confidence sets and fungible estimates

Current concerns regarding the dependability of psychological findings call for methodological developments to provide additional evidence in support of scientific conclusions. This article highlights the value and importance of two distinct kinds of parameter uncertainty, which are quantified by co...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pek, J. (Author), Wu, H. (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: American Psychological Association Inc. 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 03110nam a2200529Ia 4500
001 10.1037-met0000163
008 220706s2018 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 1082989X (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a Parameter uncertainty in structural equation models: Confidence sets and fungible estimates 
260 0 |b American Psychological Association Inc.  |c 2018 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000163 
520 3 |a Current concerns regarding the dependability of psychological findings call for methodological developments to provide additional evidence in support of scientific conclusions. This article highlights the value and importance of two distinct kinds of parameter uncertainty, which are quantified by confidence sets (CSs) and fungible parameter estimates (FPEs; Lee, MacCallum, & Browne, 2017); both provide essential information regarding the defensibility of scientific findings. Using the structural equation model, we introduce a general perturbation framework based on the likelihood function that unifies CSs and FPEs and sheds new light on the conceptual distinctions between them. A targeted illustration is then presented to demonstrate the factors which differentially influence CSs and FPEs, further highlighting their theoretical differences. With 3 empirical examples on initiating a conversation with a stranger (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1988), posttraumatic growth of caregivers in the context of pediatric palliative care (Cadell et al., 2014), and the direct and indirect effects of spirituality on thriving among youth (Dowling, Gestsdottir, Anderson, von Eye, & Lerner, 2004), we illustrate how CSs and FPEs provide unique information which lead to better informed scientific conclusions. Finally, we discuss the importance of considering information afforded by CSs and FPEs in strengthening the basis of interpreting statistical results in substantive research, conclude with future research directions, and provide example OpenMx code for the computation of CSs and FPEs. © 2018 American Psychological Association. 
650 0 4 |a caregiver 
650 0 4 |a child 
650 0 4 |a Confidence sets 
650 0 4 |a conversation 
650 0 4 |a Data Interpretation, Statistical 
650 0 4 |a drawing 
650 0 4 |a effect size 
650 0 4 |a Fungible estimates 
650 0 4 |a human 
650 0 4 |a human experiment 
650 0 4 |a Humans 
650 0 4 |a juvenile 
650 0 4 |a Models, Statistical 
650 0 4 |a palliative therapy 
650 0 4 |a procedures 
650 0 4 |a Profile likelihood 
650 0 4 |a psychology 
650 0 4 |a Psychology 
650 0 4 |a religion 
650 0 4 |a rest 
650 0 4 |a sampling 
650 0 4 |a scientist 
650 0 4 |a Sensitivity analysis 
650 0 4 |a simulation 
650 0 4 |a statistical analysis 
650 0 4 |a statistical model 
650 0 4 |a structural equation modeling 
650 0 4 |a Structural equation modeling 
650 0 4 |a theoretical study 
650 0 4 |a uncertainty 
650 0 4 |a Uncertainty 
650 0 4 |a validity 
700 1 |a Pek, J.  |e author 
700 1 |a Wu, H.  |e author 
773 |t Psychological Methods