Common methods variance PreviousNext
Mplus Discussion > Structural Equation Modeling >
 Tristan posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 6:13 am
Hi there,

I am new to SEM and MPLUS, and attempting to model a latent factor that influences all indicators in the structural model as per the recommendations of Podsakoff et al (2003). I am getting some weird results when I compare the path coefficients in my structural models (no CMV factor versus CMV factor present). The coefficients (and overall R2 for endogenous variable) differs significantly between CMV and no CMV models, so I want to check if I am modelling CMV correctly. My code is below:

factor definition and path modelling omitted...

CMV by Q9ci_RecWelc-Q29_ServNeeds;

Thanks so much,

 Linda K. Muthen posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 8:44 am
I see nothing wrong in what you present. To answer your question, I need to see the full outputs and your license number at
 Jorge Walter posted on Thursday, July 03, 2014 - 10:39 am
Dear Linda,

I'm working on the same common method test described above. And while my models are working, I was wondering how exactly I could use the output of such a CFA model to partition the variance, i.e., estimate the percentage of variance in responses due to trait, method, and random error components
(Podsakoff et al., 2003; Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989)?

Thanks in advance for your help!
 Bengt O. Muthen posted on Thursday, July 03, 2014 - 4:21 pm
You may want to ask this general question on SEMNET. The Mplus Model Constraint command can be used for any such expression.
 Jorge Walter posted on Saturday, July 05, 2014 - 4:21 am
Thanks, Bengt, will do.
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message