Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory.

By B. Muthén, T. Asparouhov. Psychological methods, 2012

1,480 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c05937cd20abc68a2ac112923a96632dc3b917fc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling With Cross-Loadings and Residual Covariances (2015, methodology): “As d increases, the prior variance for all parameters converges to zero; see formulas (A15) and (A17) in Muthén and Asparouhov (2012).”
Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. (2014, methodology): “We view the two approaches as complementary: Increasing knowledge based on ESEM provides a basis for specifying priors in BSEM, but additional research that juxtaposes these approaches is needed (for further discussion, see Muthén & Asparouhov 2012).”
A Bayesian Approach to Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling With Continuous and Dichotomous Outcomes (2015, methodology): “Bayesian estimation of SEMs (Kaplan & Depaoli, 2012; Lee, 2007; Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012a; Scheines, Hoijtink, & Boomsma, 1999) and MLMs (Congdon, 2010; Gelman & Hill, 2007; Lynch, 2007) is a prevalent methodological topic because Bayesian methods are useful for solving problems that are unique to…”
A Bayesian Approach for Estimating Multilevel Latent Contextual Models (2016, methodology): “For each model and model parameter, the PSR was 1 and the MCMCSEPSD ratio was well below .05, indicating that WinBUGS approximated the posterior distributions very well (see Hoff, 2009; B. O. Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012; see also Cho & Bottge, 2015).”
Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies (2020, methodology): “…estimation and testing procedures, such as Bayesian SEM (BSEM) with approximate zero priors for cross-loadings and/or residual correlations (e.g., Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012) or two stage least squares (2SLS) estimation with instrumental variables (e.g., Bollen, Gates, & Fisher, 2018), which…”
Measurement Invariance Testing with Many Groups: A Comparison of Five Approaches (2017, methodology): “Thus, the extreme PPP values (e.g., smaller than .05 or .01) are considered an indication of model misfit (Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012; Sinharay et al., 2006).”
Regulatory job stressors and their within-person relationships with ego depletion: The roles of state anxiety, self-control effort, and job autonomy. (2016, background): “With posterior predictive p values close to the ideal value of .500 (cf. Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012, p. 315), all three models showed excellent model fits.”
Effects of Mindfulness-Acceptance-Commitment (MAC) on Sport-Specific Dispositional Mindfulness, Emotion Regulation, and Self-Rated Athletic Performance in a Multiple-Sport Population: an RCT Study (2019, background): “A positive lower limit is in line with a low posterior predictive p value and indicates poor fit^ (Muthén and Asparouhov 2012, p. 315).”
Small Sample Size Solutions (2020, methodology): “…address small sample size issues for structural equation models (SEMs), instead of using frequentist methods (see, for example, Depaoli, 2013; B. O. Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012; Stegmueller, 2013; Van de Schoot, Broere, Perryck, Zondervan-Zwijnenburg & Van Loey, 2015; Van Erp, Mulder & Oberski,…”