2010
DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2010.488999
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural Equation Models of Latent Interactions: Clarification of Orthogonalizing and Double-Mean-Centering Strategies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
128
0
3

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 131 publications
(131 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
128
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Fortunately, methodological advancements using structural equation modeling including the "double-mean-centered" approach (Lin, Wen, Marsh, & Lin, 2010) as well as the latent moderated structural model (Klein & Moosebrugger, 2000) and more robust quasi-maximum likelihood estimation (Klein & Muthén, 2007) should help address these issues of measurement error.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Fortunately, methodological advancements using structural equation modeling including the "double-mean-centered" approach (Lin, Wen, Marsh, & Lin, 2010) as well as the latent moderated structural model (Klein & Moosebrugger, 2000) and more robust quasi-maximum likelihood estimation (Klein & Muthén, 2007) should help address these issues of measurement error.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the Discussion section, a second useful extension in this field would be simulation studies designed to examine how the use of new techniques in SEM for forming quadratic and interaction terms between continuous latent variables, specifically Lin et al's (2010) "double-mean-centered" approach and Klein and Muthén's (2007) quasimaximum likelihood method, address the reliability issues highlighted in MacCallum and Mar (1995). Similarly, it would be valuable for scholars to study whether these methods are robust when estimating complex linear models including both quadratic terms as well as quadratic-by-linear interactions.…”
Section: Future Research and Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because moderation analyses involved the interaction of latent variables with different numbers of indicators, the latent variable for the moderator variable was created by first summing scores across the four psychological flexibility indicators. Moderator indicators were then created with indProd in the semtools package and mean-centered without nonlinear constraints (Lin, Wen, Marsh & Lin, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following Kenny and Judd (1984), several strategies to simplify the specification of the constraints have been devised, for example, by centering the indicators of the latent predictor variables or by using two-step estimation procedures (Algina & Moulder, 2001, Little, Bovaird, & Widaman, 2006, Ping, 1995, 1996. The so-called unconstrained approach (Kelava & Brandt, 2009;Marsh et al, 2004;Marsh, Wen, & Hau, 2006) represents the current end of this development: Marsh et al (2004) showed that only a single constraint is necessary when only a single interaction effect is estimated (see also Lin, Wen, Marsh, & Lin, 2010;Wen, Marsh, & Hau, 2010). Building upon this work, Kelava (2009) and Kelava and Brandt (2009) introduced the extended unconstrained approach (ExUC) and showed how the unconstrained approach can be correctly extended to simultaneously estimate latent quadratic and interDownloaded by [Universitaetsbibliothek Giessen] at 01:37 19 November 2014…”
Section: Non-bayesian Approaches For Estimating Nonlinear Semsmentioning
confidence: 98%