Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T09:44:12.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect Size, Power, and Sample Size Determination for Structured means Modeling and Mimic Approaches to between-groups Hypothesis Testing of means on a Single Latent Construct

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Gregory R. Hancock
Gregory R. Hancock*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Gregory R. Hancock, 1230 Benjamin Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1115. E-Mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While effect size estimates, post hoc power estimates, and a priori sample size determination are becoming a routine part of univariate analyses involving measured variables (e.g., ANOVA), such measures and methods have not been articulated for analyses involving latent means. The current article presents standardized effect size measures for latent mean differences inferred from both structured means modeling and MIMIC approaches to hypothesis testing about differences among means on a single latent construct. These measures are then related to post hoc power analysis, a priori sample size determination, and a relevant measure of construct reliability.

Keywords

structural equation modelingeffect sizesstructured means modelingMIMIC modelspower analysisconstruct reliability
Type
Articles
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 373 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I wish to convey my appreciation to the reviewers and Associate Editor, whose suggestions extended and strengthened the article's content immensely, and to Ralph Mueller of The George Washington University for enhancing the clarity of its presentation.

References

Aiken, L.S., Stein, J.A., & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Structural equation analyses of clinical subpopulation differences and comparative treatment outcomes: Characterizing the daily lives of drug addicts. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 488–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aptech Systems (1996). GAUSS system and graphics manual. Maple Valley, WA: Author.Google Scholar
Bentler, P.M. (1968). Alpha-maximized factor analysis (alphamax): Its relation to alpha and canonical factor analysis. Psychometrika, 33, 335–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P.M. (1997). EQS structural equations program. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.Google Scholar
Bentler, P.M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M.W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleary, T.A., & Linn, R.L. (1969). Error of measurement and the power of a statistical test. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 22, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 2nd ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Crocker, L.M., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Drewes, D.W. (2000). Beyond the Spearman-Brown: A structural approach to maximal reliability. Psychological Methods, 5, 214–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dukes, R.L., Ullman, J.B., & Stein, J.A. (1995). An evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), using a Solomon four-group design with latent variables. Evaluation Review, 19, 409–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallo, J.J., Anthony, J.C., & Muthén, B.O. (1994). Age differences in the symptoms of depression: A latent trait analysis. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, 251–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hancock, G.R. (1997). Structural equation modeling methods of hypothesis testing of latent variable means. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynam, G.E., Govindarajulu, Z., & Leone, F.C. (1973). Tables of the cumulative non-central chi-square distribution. In Harter, H.L., & Owen, D.B. (Eds.), Selected tables in mathematical statistics (pp. 1–78). Chicago: Markham Publishing.Google Scholar
Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G., & Goldberger, A.S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 631–639.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D., & George, R. (1995). A study of the power associated with testing factor mean differences under violations of factorial invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnunen, U., & Leskinen, E. (1989). Teacher stress during the school year: Covariance and mean structure analyses. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1996). Reliability of measurement in psychology: From Spearman-Brown to maximal reliability. Psychological Methods, 1, 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, S.E. (1980). Dependent variable reliability and determination of sample size. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, B.O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54, 557–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory 3rd ed., New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
SAS Institute (1996). SAS statistical software. Cary, NC: Author.Google Scholar
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In von Eye, A., & Clogg, C.C. (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Satorra, A., & Saris, W.E. (1985). Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sörbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structure between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar