Path analysis with observed and laten... PreviousNext
Mplus Discussion > Structural Equation Modeling >
 Alok Saboo posted on Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 8:10 pm

I am running a path analysis with some observed indicators and some latent variables. Is there a good example in the manual (or elsewhere) that I can refer to for the same?

Kindly advice...thanks!!
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 6:19 am
We don't have such an example. Just BY statements to define the latent variables and ON statements to relate the observed and latent variables according to you path model. Nothing special needs to be done in this case. Path model examples are in Chapter 3. CFA examples are in Chapter 5.
 CG posted on Saturday, April 21, 2018 - 6:38 am
Hello, I have a similar question/concern. I am conducting an SEM and unsure how to explain my model using the traditional "measurement" and "structural" model differentiation/fit comparison.

I have two latent variables theorized to be indicated by 5 observed (manifest) variables, and I want to examine whether these latent variables predict 6 observed outcome variables. When I entered all the variables into the model simultaneously and specified the ON statements, I was able to modify the latent variable (measurement?) portion of the model and improve the fit.

Is this considered an SEM or path analysis? Do I need to model the latent variables separately (do not include the observed outcome variables in the usevar command), and then run a second model with the observed outcome variables included?
 Bengt O. Muthen posted on Sunday, April 22, 2018 - 10:21 am
I would call that an SEM. I would first check the measurement model, but then analyze all variables together.
 CG posted on Monday, April 23, 2018 - 7:13 pm
Thank you. To confirm, I should only test the latent portion of the model and include those variables in the “usevariable” command (measurement model). Once this fits, I can then test the full structural model by adding the observed outcome variables to the "usevariable" command and add the ON syntax from the latent variables to these outcome variables.

In terms of the structural model, is it acceptable to make additional modifications to the latent variables once the outcome variables and ON statements are added? I had strong fit for the measurement model but poor fit for the structural model. I was able to improve fit for the structural model by making additional modifications to the (measurement) latent variables (i.e., additional indicators were freed to load on latent variables).

What would it mean that additional modifications to the measurement (latent variables) portion of the model were needed at the structural level? How would one interpret/explain this to a reader? Thanks!
 Bengt O. Muthen posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - 2:33 pm
Paragraph 1: Right.

Paragraph 2: I think this is acceptable. With many modifications, however, the p-values in the final step aren't quite right (check with SEMNET).

Paragraph 3: SEM modeling implies restrictions not only among the indicators of a factor but also between these indicators and the outcome variables.
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