Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reporting Results From Structural Equation Modeling Analyses in Archives of
Reporting Results From Structural Equation Modeling Analyses in Archives of
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000004
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
S C I E N T I F I C
A B S T R A C T
For the scientific community, we recommend reporting standards consistent with the Journal Article Reporting Standards
(JARS) of the American Psychological Association for manuscripts in which results from SEM analyses are presented. For
all sections of the general JARS except the results section, we recommend minor adjustments. For the results section of
the JARS, we provide a supplemental module specific to reports of research that use SEM. The result is a questionnaire
that ensures thorough and detailed reports of SEM analyses in the Archives.
Keywords: reporting standards, structural equation modeling, JARS
The American Psychological Associations Publication and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting
Standards (JARS Group) proposed a set of standards for reports of
research involving new data collection or quantitative syntheses of
extant research (APA Publication and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards, 2008). These
standards have been translated into a questionnaire that is completed
by the authors of manuscripts submitted to the Archives of Scientific
Psychology as a means of ensuring that the reporting standards have
been met. By encouraging thoroughness, consistency, and transparency in research reports, the JARS contribute to the quality and
potential impact of research by psychological scientists.
Psychological science takes many forms and, for this reason, the
JARS Group presented their recommendations as a work in progress, assuming that new methods and paradigms would emerge as
the discipline matures. They also acknowledged that, although
most of the JARS are relevant for any data-based research report,
it would be necessary to develop supplemental modules for specific research designs and statistical approaches. In this article, we
propose minor adjustments to sections of the general JARS questionnaire and present a new supplemental module for reports of
research in which structural equation modeling (SEM) is the statistical method by which evidence is brought to bear on a set of
hypotheses or research questions.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
15
16
Table 1
Adjustments to Sections Other Than the Results Section of the JARS Questionnaire for All Studies
Reporting Results of Structural Equation Modeling
TITLE
The multivariate data to which SEM analyses often are applied and the complexity of relations SEM can be used to
test makes it unlikely that, in most cases, the variables under investigation and the relations between them could be
fully identified in the title. Instead, we recommend identifying the mechanism or process reflected in the primary
model to which the data are fit.
AUTHOR NOTE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT
Same as in general questionnaire except replace effect sizes, confidence intervals, and/or significance levels under
the findings, including: bullet with
o
two or more omnibus fit indices from different classes?
yes__ no__, explain
INTRODUCTION
Same as in general questionnaire but replace material under the describe the specific hypothesis or objectives bullet
with
METHOD
Were indicators of latent variables drawn from one or more multi-item questionnaires?
yes__ no__ there are no latent variables in the model__
If yes, then for each questionnaire
o
Were indicators items or parcels? If parcels, how were they constructed? If items, were they treated
as categorical or continuous?
Replace the How was sample size determined bullet in the Sample size, power, and precision section with the
following:
If the data were generated by simulation, skip the Sample size, power, and precision; and Measures and
covariates sections. Replace the Sampling procedures bullets with the following:
(table continues)
17
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 1 (continued)
DISCUSSION
Same as in general questionnaire, except add to the list under the Are results interpreted taking into account bullet:
equivalent/alternative models?
In manuscript__ supplemental files__ not relevant__
explain
18
Table 2
JAR Supplemental Module to Be Substituted for the Results Section of the JARS Questionnaire for All
Studies Reporting Results of Structural Equation Modeling
RESULTS
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Data Preparation
Please provide the information requested in this supplemental JARS questionnaire, or in the text box provide the
page number, table, or supplemental file in which the information can be found.
Specification
If data are not multivariate normal, what strategy was used to address nonnormality?
Is a full account of the model specification for all models to be evaluated provided, including:
o
latent variables? yes__ no__
o
fixed and free parameters? yes__ no__
o
constrained parameters? yes__ no__
Is sufficient information provided that, for all models evaluated, the degrees of freedom can be derived by the
reader?
yes__ no __
Was the method for establishing model identification stated and justified?
yes__ no__, explain not established__
If the model includes a measurement component, is a basis for the specification provided?
yes__ no__ no measurement component__
(table continues)
19
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 2 (continued)
Estimation
Evaluation of Fit
If the model includes a means component, is the specification of the mean structure described fully?
yes__ no__ no means component__
If the model includes interaction effects, explain how those effects were specified.
interaction effects__ no interaction effects__
If the data are nested (e.g., occasion within person, student within classroom), explain how nonindependence
is accounted for in the model.
nested data__ no nested data__
Are any comparisons of parameters to be made between groups or occasions? If so indicate which parameters
are to be compared for which groups or occasions.
yes__ no __
Were any default criteria (e.g., number of iterations, tolerance) adjusted in order to achieve convergence?
yes__, explain no__
Is there any evidence of an improper solution (e.g., error variances constrained at zero; standardized factor
loadings greater than 1.0)?
yes__, explain no__
Were criteria clearly stated and adhered to for all evaluations of fit?
yes__ no__, explain
If alternative models were compared, what strategy and criterion was used to select one over the other(s)?
alternative models__ no alternative models__
If individual parameters were tested, what test and criterion was used?
(table continues)
20
Table 2 (continued)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Re-Specification
Presentation of Results
If parameters were compared between groups or occasions, indicate how those comparisons were made,
including criterion.
between groups/occasions comparisons__ no comparisons__
state clearly which fixed parameters were freed or fixed in order to produce the interpreted
model(s)
provide a theoretical or conceptual justification for parameters that were freed or fixed after
specification searching
Are the case-level data archived and information provided so that they could be accessed by interested
readers?
yes__ no__, explain
Does the manuscript clearly indicate whether the model(s) for which results are presented were specified
before or after fitting other models or otherwise examining the data?
yes__ no__, explain
(table continues)
21
Table 2 (continued)
o
Presentation of Results
(continued)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
standard errors with unstandardized estimates or, with standardized estimates, results of statistical
tests?
yes__ no__, explain
state and justify the chosen strategy for testing the effect?
yes__ no__, explain
References
APA Publication and Communications Board Working Group on Journal
Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in
psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist, 63, 839 851.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238 246.
Boomsma, A. (2000). Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural
Equation Modeling, 7, 461 483.
Boomsma, A., Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (2012). The structural equation
modeling research report. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 341358). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Chou, C.-P., & Huh, J. (2012). Model modification in structural equation
modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling
(pp. 232246). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gefen, D., Rigdon, E. E., & Straub, D. (2011). An update and extension to
SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. Management
Information Systems Quarterly, 35, A1A7.
22
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection
in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209 231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.