Measurement error models with uncertainty about the error variance

D.L. Oberski, A. Satorra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

It is well known that measurement error in observable variables induces bias in estimates in standard regression analysis and that structural equation models are a typical solution to this problem. Often, multiple indicator equations are subsumed as part of the structural equation model, allowing for consistent estimation of the relevant regression parameters. In many instances, however, embedding the measurement model into structural equation models is not possible because the model would not be identified. To correct for measurement error one has no other recourse than to provide the exact values of the variances of the measurement error terms of the model, although in practice such variances cannot be ascertained exactly, but only estimated from an independent study. The usual approach so far has been to treat the estimated values of error variances as if they were known exact population values in the subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. In this article we show that fixing measurement error variance estimates as if they were true values can make the reported standard errors of the structural parameters of the model smaller than they should be. Inferences about the parameters of interest will be incorrect if the estimated nature of the variances is not taken into account. For general SEM, we derive an explicit expression that provides the terms to be added to the standard errors provided by the standard SEM software that treats the estimated variances as exact population values. Interestingly, we find there is a differential impact of the corrections to be added to the standard errors depending on which parameter of the model is estimated. The theoretical results are illustrated with simulations and also with empirical data on a typical SEM model.
Keywords: correction for measurement error, error variance, fixed parameters, measurement error, reliability, standard errors, standard error of reliability, structural equation modeling
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)409-428
JournalStructural Equation Modeling
Volume20
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Measurement Error Model
Measurement errors
Structural Equation Modeling
Measurement Error
Standard error
uncertainty
Uncertainty
Structural Equation Model
structural model
Model
Consistent Estimation
Structural Parameters
Measurement error
Error term
Regression Analysis
Estimate
Values
Error correction
Regression
Regression analysis

Cite this

Oberski, D.L. ; Satorra, A. / Measurement error models with uncertainty about the error variance. In: Structural Equation Modeling. 2013 ; Vol. 20, No. 3. pp. 409-428.
@article{ea67fdc0b3e9401793788f0e4cabedde,
title = "Measurement error models with uncertainty about the error variance",
abstract = "It is well known that measurement error in observable variables induces bias in estimates in standard regression analysis and that structural equation models are a typical solution to this problem. Often, multiple indicator equations are subsumed as part of the structural equation model, allowing for consistent estimation of the relevant regression parameters. In many instances, however, embedding the measurement model into structural equation models is not possible because the model would not be identified. To correct for measurement error one has no other recourse than to provide the exact values of the variances of the measurement error terms of the model, although in practice such variances cannot be ascertained exactly, but only estimated from an independent study. The usual approach so far has been to treat the estimated values of error variances as if they were known exact population values in the subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. In this article we show that fixing measurement error variance estimates as if they were true values can make the reported standard errors of the structural parameters of the model smaller than they should be. Inferences about the parameters of interest will be incorrect if the estimated nature of the variances is not taken into account. For general SEM, we derive an explicit expression that provides the terms to be added to the standard errors provided by the standard SEM software that treats the estimated variances as exact population values. Interestingly, we find there is a differential impact of the corrections to be added to the standard errors depending on which parameter of the model is estimated. The theoretical results are illustrated with simulations and also with empirical data on a typical SEM model.Keywords: correction for measurement error, error variance, fixed parameters, measurement error, reliability, standard errors, standard error of reliability, structural equation modeling",
author = "D.L. Oberski and A. Satorra",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1080/10705511.2013.797820",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "409--428",
journal = "Structural Equation Modeling",
issn = "1070-5511",
publisher = "ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD",
number = "3",

}

Measurement error models with uncertainty about the error variance. / Oberski, D.L.; Satorra, A.

In: Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2013, p. 409-428.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measurement error models with uncertainty about the error variance

AU - Oberski, D.L.

AU - Satorra, A.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - It is well known that measurement error in observable variables induces bias in estimates in standard regression analysis and that structural equation models are a typical solution to this problem. Often, multiple indicator equations are subsumed as part of the structural equation model, allowing for consistent estimation of the relevant regression parameters. In many instances, however, embedding the measurement model into structural equation models is not possible because the model would not be identified. To correct for measurement error one has no other recourse than to provide the exact values of the variances of the measurement error terms of the model, although in practice such variances cannot be ascertained exactly, but only estimated from an independent study. The usual approach so far has been to treat the estimated values of error variances as if they were known exact population values in the subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. In this article we show that fixing measurement error variance estimates as if they were true values can make the reported standard errors of the structural parameters of the model smaller than they should be. Inferences about the parameters of interest will be incorrect if the estimated nature of the variances is not taken into account. For general SEM, we derive an explicit expression that provides the terms to be added to the standard errors provided by the standard SEM software that treats the estimated variances as exact population values. Interestingly, we find there is a differential impact of the corrections to be added to the standard errors depending on which parameter of the model is estimated. The theoretical results are illustrated with simulations and also with empirical data on a typical SEM model.Keywords: correction for measurement error, error variance, fixed parameters, measurement error, reliability, standard errors, standard error of reliability, structural equation modeling

AB - It is well known that measurement error in observable variables induces bias in estimates in standard regression analysis and that structural equation models are a typical solution to this problem. Often, multiple indicator equations are subsumed as part of the structural equation model, allowing for consistent estimation of the relevant regression parameters. In many instances, however, embedding the measurement model into structural equation models is not possible because the model would not be identified. To correct for measurement error one has no other recourse than to provide the exact values of the variances of the measurement error terms of the model, although in practice such variances cannot be ascertained exactly, but only estimated from an independent study. The usual approach so far has been to treat the estimated values of error variances as if they were known exact population values in the subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. In this article we show that fixing measurement error variance estimates as if they were true values can make the reported standard errors of the structural parameters of the model smaller than they should be. Inferences about the parameters of interest will be incorrect if the estimated nature of the variances is not taken into account. For general SEM, we derive an explicit expression that provides the terms to be added to the standard errors provided by the standard SEM software that treats the estimated variances as exact population values. Interestingly, we find there is a differential impact of the corrections to be added to the standard errors depending on which parameter of the model is estimated. The theoretical results are illustrated with simulations and also with empirical data on a typical SEM model.Keywords: correction for measurement error, error variance, fixed parameters, measurement error, reliability, standard errors, standard error of reliability, structural equation modeling

U2 - 10.1080/10705511.2013.797820

DO - 10.1080/10705511.2013.797820

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 409

EP - 428

JO - Structural Equation Modeling

JF - Structural Equation Modeling

SN - 1070-5511

IS - 3

ER -