Selecting scaling indicators in structural equation models (sems).

Abstract

It is common practice for psychologists to specify models with latent variables to represent concepts that are difficult to directly measure. Each latent variable needs a scale, and the most popular method of scaling as well as the default in most structural equation modeling (SEM) software uses a scaling or reference indicator. Much of the time, the choice of which indicator to use for this purpose receives little attention, and many analysts use the first indicator without considering whether there are better choices. When all indicators of the latent variable have essentially the same properties, then the choice matters less. But when this is not true, we could benefit from scaling indicator guidelines. Our article first demonstrates why latent variables need a scale. We then propose a set of criteria and accompanying diagnostic tools that can assist researchers in making informed decisions about scaling indicators. The criteria for a good scaling indicator include high face validity, high correlation with the latent variable, factor complexity of one, no correlated errors, no direct effects with other indicators, a minimal number of significant overidentification equation tests and modification indices, and invariance across groups and time. We demonstrate these criteria and diagnostics using two empirical examples and provide guidance on navigating conflicting results among criteria.

Research on the Improvement of Digital Literacy for Moderately Scaled Tea Farmers under the Background of Digital Intelligence Empowerment

“…As shown in Table 4, the various indicators of the initial model of influencing factors on the digital literacy improvement behavior of moderately scaled tea farmers were basically on the ideal fit index coefficient standard, with a CMIN/DF of 1.894, a GFI value of 0.883, an RMR value of 0.031, an RMSEA value of 0.045, an NFI value of 0.884, a TLI value of 0.935, a CFI value of 0.941, an IFI value of 0.942, and a PNFI value of 0.799. Therefore, the adaptability of the model in this study was relatively good and theoretically acceptable [68]. Table 5 shows the results of the initial model path analysis report.…”