Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Omissions by Design in a Survey: Is This a Good Choice when using Structural Equation Models?

Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy
Volume 70 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)
By:
Open Access
|Oct 2024

References

  1. Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In Marcoulides, G. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (eds.), Advanced structural equation modelling, 243–277. Erlbaum.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. Azar, B. (2002). Finding a solution for missing data. Monitor on Psychology, 33,70.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. Bandalous, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In Hancock, G. R. & Mueller, R. O. (eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861554-15
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Equation Models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. Bollen, K. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, USA: Wile
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. Cangur, S., & Ercan, I. (2015). Comparison of model Fit Indices Used in Structural Equation Modeling Under Multivariate Normality, 14 (1), 152–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1430453580
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. Davey, A. (2005). Issues in evaluating model fit with missing data. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J., 12, 578–597. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1204_4
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied Missing Data. New York, USA: The Guilford Press.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods and model specification on structural equation modelling fit indexes. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J., 6, 56–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540119
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. Fürst, G. (2020). Measuring creativity with planned missing data. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(1), 150–164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.352
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. Garnier-Vilarreal, M., Rhemtulla, M., & Little, T.D. (2014). Two-method planned missing designs for longitudinal research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(5), 411–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414542711
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. Graham, J., Taylor, B., Olchowski, A., & Cumsville, P. (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11, 323–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.11.4.323
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. Graham,J., Hofer,S. & Mackinnon,D. (1996). Maximizing the usefulness of data obtained with planned missing value patterns: An application of maximum likelihood procedures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31, 197–218.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed). Columbus, Oh: Pearson.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. Hancock, G. R. & Mueller, R. O. (2011). The reliability paradox in assessing structural relations within covariance structure models. Educ. Psychol. Meas., 71, 306–324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410384856
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. Hoyle, R. H. (2012). Handbook of Structural equation Modelling. New York, USA: Guilford Press.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. Jia, F., Moore, E. W. G., Kinai, R. Crowe, K. S., Schoemann, A. M., & Little, T. D. (2014). Planned missing data designs with small sample sizes: How small is too small? Int. J. Behav. Dev., 38, 435–452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414531095
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling – Foundations and Extensions. Sage Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226576
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. Kenny, D. A., Kanishan, B. & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 486–507. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. Kenny, D. A. & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modelling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 333–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press, New York.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. Lang, K. M., Moore, E. W. G., & Grandfield, E. M. (2020). A novel item-allocation procedure for the three-form planned missing design. MethodsX, 7, 100941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100941
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. Lawes, M., Schultze, M., & Eid, M. J. A. (2020). Making the most of your research budget: Efficiency of a three-method measurement design with planned missing data. Assessment, 27(5), 903–920. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118798050
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. Little, T. D., Jorgensen, T. D., Lang, K. M., & Moore, W. G. (2013). On the Joys of Missing Data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(2), 151–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst048
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. G. (2021). Dynamic Fit Index Cutoffs for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models. Pshycological Methods. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. Moore, E. W. G., Lang, K. M., & Grandfield, E. M. (2020). Maximizing data quality and shortening survey time: Three-form planned missing data survey design. Psychology of sport & Exercise , 51, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101701
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. Moshagen, M. (2012). The model size effect in SEM: Inflated goodness of fit statistics are due to the size of the covariance matrix. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J., 19, 86–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.634724
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. Nye, C. D. (2022). Reviewer Resources: Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Organ. Res. Methods. Online publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221120541
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. Pornprasertmanit, S., Miller, P., Schoemann, A., & Jorgensen, T. D. (2021). simsem: SIMulated Structural Equation Modeling (version 0.5-16) [R package]. Retrieved from http://simsem.org/
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. Rhemtulla, M., & Hancock, G. R. (2016). Planned Missing Data Designs in Educational Psychology Research. Educational Psychologist, 51(3-4), 305–316.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. Rioux, C., Lewin, A., Odejimi, O. A., & Little, T. D. (2020). International Journal of Epidemiology, 1702–1711. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa042
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  33. Rubin, D. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63(3), 581–592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/63.3.581
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  34. Schoemann, A. M., Miller, P., Pornprasertmanit, S, & Wu, W. (2014). Using Monte Carlo simulations to determine power and sample size for planned missing designs. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 38(5), 471–479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413515169
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  35. Shi, D., Lee, T., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2019). Understanding the Model Size Effect on SEM Fit Indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(2), 310–334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418783530
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  36. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  37. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291170
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  38. Vicente, P. C. R. (2023). Evaluating the Effect of Planned Missing Designs in Structural Equation Model Fit Measures. Psych, 5, 983–995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/psych5030064
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  39. Wu, W., & Jia, F. (2021). Applying planned missingness designs to longitudinal panel studies in developmental science: An overview. Child & Adolescent Development, 2021 (175), 35–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20391
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  40. Yuan, K.-H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 40(1), 115–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4001_5
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  41. Zhang, X., & Savalei, V. (2023). New computations for RMSEA and CFI following FIML and TS estimation with missing data. Psychol. Methods, 28, 263–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1642111
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ngoe-2024-0018 | Journal eISSN: 2385-8052 | Journal ISSN: 0547-3101
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 83 - 91
Submitted on: May 1, 2024
Accepted on: Sep 1, 2024
Published on: Oct 6, 2024
Published by: University of Maribor, Faculty of Organizational Science
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
Omissions by design,
Structural Equation Model,
Survey
Related subjects:
Business and economics,
Political economics,
Economic policy,
Business management,
Management, organization, corporate governance,
Mathematics and statistics for economists,
Statistics

© 2024 Paula C. R. Vicente, published by University of Maribor, Faculty of Organizational Science
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 70 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)