|
|
 |
| Comparing bifactor models embedded wi... |
 
|
| Message/Author |
|
|
| LSH posted on Friday, August 25, 2017 - 1:48 pm
|
|
|
I'm trying to test two competing SEMs. Both contain a bifactor model predicting a latent variable. I would like to assess whether the model fit is improved by allowing the specific factors to predict in addition to the general factor. Model:
EmoReg BY D1, D3-D5, D7, D9, D11-D16, D18-D33, D35-D36;
NON BY D25 D21 D12 D11 D29 D23;
GOAL BY D26 D18 D13 D33 D20;
IMPULSE BY D32 D27 D14 D19 D3 D24;
STRAT BY D16 D15 D31 D35 D28 D22 D36 D30;
CLAR BY D5 D4 D9 D7 D1;
EmoReg WITH STRAT@0 NON@0 GOAL@0 IMPULSE@0 CLAR@0;
STRAT WITH NON@0 GOAL@0 IMPULSE@0 CLAR@0;
NON WITH GOAL@0 IMPULSE@0 CLAR@0;
GOAL WITH IMPULSE@0 CLAR@0;
IMPULSE WITH CLAR@0;
DASS BY str anx dep;
DASS ON EmoReg;
DASS WITH STRAT@0 NON@0 GOAL@0 IMPULSE@0 CLAR@0;
The specific factor syntax is identical except the last line is: DASS ON STRAT NON GOAL IMPULSE CLAR. Is this correct? Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
| I would change the DASS WITH statement to DASS ON (and fix all the slopes to 0). It may not make a difference but it is more logical. |
|
|
| LSH posted on Sunday, August 27, 2017 - 6:40 am
|
|
|
| Thank you very much, I appreciate the help! |
|
|
| LSH posted on Sunday, August 27, 2017 - 8:32 am
|
|
|
| One follow-up question: Am I right in understanding that these models are nested? Thank you again! |
|
|
| LSH posted on Sunday, August 27, 2017 - 10:49 am
|
|
|
| Update: please disregard my previous post; I believe I have figured it out. Thanks again for your help. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
