Standardized coefficients and fit ind... PreviousNext
Mplus Discussion > Structural Equation Modeling >
Message/Author
 Christopher Desjardins posted on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 8:33 am
Hi,
Is there a way to get standardized coefficients and fit indices (RMSEA, CLI, etc.) with MLR? I am comparing models and selecting the best with BIC but because I have an interaction model using the xwith command I don't seem to have these available. Thanks.
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 9:05 am
These are not available for TYPE=RANDOM.
 Christopher Desjardins posted on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 10:22 am
Thanks Linda. Do I have any other kind of options? I can't do a multi group because of a small sample size.
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 8:35 am
With TYPE=RANDOM; the variance of y varies with the values of x. This precludes the calculation of standardized coefficients and chi-square and related fit statistics. In this case, nested models are tested using -2 times the loglikelihood difference which is distributed as chi-square.
 Syd posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 1:30 pm
Hi,
I am testing the direct and interaction effects of two second-order continuous latent variables (f1 and f2) on another continous latent variable (f3), and the mediation effect of this variable on a binary (f4) dependent variable with a single indicator.
My model is roughly as follows (I have left out BY commands for f5 through f10 for simplicity):

f4 BY y1;
f1 BY f5 f6 f7;
f2 BY f8 f9 f10;
f3 BY x1-x6;
f3 ON f1 f2;
f1xf2 | f1 xwith f2;
f3 ON f1xf2;
f4 ON f3 f1 f2 f1xf2

I have two questions:

1. I understand that I need to use either MLR or WLSMV estimators in a random effects model with numerical integration. Is this correct?

2. I also understand that no fit indices are provided when testing continuous latent variable interactions. If my understanding is correct, then how can I understand whether my model is good or ill fitting for the full model?

I will greatly appreciate any suggestions and guidance.
 Syd posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 1:37 pm
Just to clarify my second question, above, I am wondering if there is a way to assess absolute fit of my full model.

Thank you.
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 2:40 pm
1. Only MLR is available with XWITH.

2. No absolute fit statistic is available for this model. I would make sure the fit is good for the model without the interaction and then check that the interaction is significant. See a recent paper in Psychometrika on fit for interaction models by Moojart and Satorra.
 Syd posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 7:50 pm
Thank you for the very prompt explanation and the reference. It was very helpful.
 Syd posted on Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 4:25 am
Hi Linda,

While testing a model with a single-indicator, binary dependent variable, I have run into an issue that I can't figure out.

My model is as follows:
VARIABLE: CATEGORICAL ARE y1;
ANALYSIS: ESTIMATOR=MLR;
MODEL:
f1 BY x1-x3;
f2 BY x4-x6;
f3 BY x7-x9;
f4 BY x10-x12;
f5 BY x13-x15;
f6 BY x16-x18;
f7 BY x19-x25;
f8 BY f1-f3;
f9 BY f4-f6;
f10 BY y1;
f7 ON f5 f6;
f10 ON f7;

The model runs fine with a single indicator continuous dependent variable, I get the following message when I use the binary DV:

THE MODEL ESTIMATION DID NOT TERMINATE NORMALLY DUE TO A NON-ZERO DERIVATIVE OF THE OBSERVED-DATA LOGLIKELIHOOD.

THE MCONVERGENCE CRITERION OF THE EM ALGORITHM IS NOT FULFILLED. CHECK YOUR STARTING VALUES OR INCREASE THE NUMBER OF MITERATIONS. ESTIMATES CANNOT BE TRUSTED. THE LOGLIKELIHOOD DERIVATIVE FOR PARAMETER 72 IS 0.16653809D+00.

I have tried increasing the MITERATIONS up to 1000, but the result remained the same. I would greatly appreciate some insight regarding what I might be doing wrong.

Second, for such a model, is there a way to get the indirect effect of f8 (via f7) on f10?

Thank you,
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 5:57 am
Please send the output and your license number to support@statmodel.com.
 Syd posted on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 4:21 am
Hi,
Is there any way to calculate standardized coefficients when using MLR and TYPE=RANDOM?
Thank you,
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 7:40 am
No, we don't give them automatically. You can use MODEL CONSTRAINT to do this.
 yao lu posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 7:37 pm
Hi Linda,

Following up your post above (July 26, 2010-7:40am),how can Model Constraint calculate standardized coefficients when using Type = Random? I read the Model Constraint section in the manual, but still not quite get it.

Could you please provide me the coding for calculating standardized coefficients?

Thank you very much.
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - 2:35 pm
There is no single y variance with TYPE=RANDOM. Because of this, you cannot standardize with respect to y.

See Example 5.20 to see how MODEL CONSTRAINT can be used for standardization.
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: