

Intercept in twolevel SEM with latent... 

Message/Author 

Tino Nsenene posted on Tuesday, September 10, 2013  5:35 am



Apologies that this will seem like a very simple question, but I'm just finding my way around multilevel SEM using Mplus  I estimated a twolevel SEM with latent factors (which is conceptually identical to ex.9.6 in the UG). However, I cannot find the intercept of the dependent latent variable (but for the observed indicators). Why is that so, or how could I request the intercept (maybe using model constraint)? Thank you for your answer! Tino 


The intercept/mean of a latent variable in a crosssectional study is zero. To refer to the intercept, say: [f]; 

Tino Nsenene posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013  11:13 am



(referring to my question from 10th september) OK, but if I extend the syntax from ex9.6 using [fb] MODEL: %WITHIN% fw BY y1y4; fw ON x1 x2; %BETWEEN% fb BY y1y4; y1y4@0; fb ON w; [fb]; The following warning appears: WARNING: THE MODEL ESTIMATION HAS REACHED A SADDLE POINT OR A POINT WHERE THE OBSERVED AND THE EXPECTED INFORMATION MATRICES DO NOT MATCH. AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE ESTIMATION OF THE INFORMATION MATRIX HAS BEEN MADE. THE CONDITION NUMBER IS 0.285D08. THE PROBLEM MAY ALSO BE RESOLVED BY DECREASING THE VALUE OF THE MCONVERGENCE OR LOGCRITERION OPTIONS OR BY CHANGING THE STARTING VALUES OR BY USING THE MLF ESTIMATOR. THE STANDARD ERRORS OF THE MODEL PARAMETER ESTIMATES MAY NOT BE TRUSTWORTHY FOR SOME PARAMETERS DUE TO A NONPOSITIVE DEFINITE FIRSTORDER DERIVATIVE PRODUCT MATRIX. THIS MAY BE DUE TO THE STARTING VALUES BUT MAY ALSO BE AN INDICATION OF MODEL NONIDENTIFICATION. THE CONDITION NUMBER IS 0.567D17. PROBLEM INVOLVING PARAMETER 18. Did I use the syntax incorrectly? 


In a crosssectional model, the intercept cannot be identified. It is fixed at zero. 

Back to top 

