IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/thesis/xef3g_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparison between Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Estimation in Structural Equation Modelling and Effects of Informative Priors

Author

Listed:
  • Chonu, Gi Kunchana

Abstract

The aims of this study are to compare the maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods for estimation in structural equation modelling in real large data sets with different degrees of multivariate non-normality and to investigate the effects of non-informative and informative priors on parameter estimates in Bayesian structural equation modelling. Two data sets from the British Household Panel Survey are taken for the analyses, with total respondents of 6,522 and 7,150. In each of them, eighteen questions are drawn to be indicators for seven latent variables. In this dissertation, three separate hypothesised models are constructed in order to increase a variety of multivariate non-normality degrees; these are Models A, B and C. The research findings provided from classical structural equation modelling show that Model A and Model B are well fitted with a non-significant chi-square statistic at a bootstrap probability of more than 0.05, while Model C is also reasonably fitted with a significant chi-square statistic at a bootstrap probability of just below 0.05. The comparative fit indices in all models illustrate very high values; additionally, the root mean square error of approximation values are rather low. Furthermore, all estimated parameters are significant at a p-value of 0.001 and there are no zero values lying between their bootstrap confidence intervals. Under the multivariate non-normal condition, maximum likelihood estimators seem to lose their efficiency property, but not by much, and are robust to violation due to the large sample size. As for the findings from Bayesian structural equation modelling, all the estimated parameters of the three models are also significant. When incorporated with non-informative priors, the estimates and their standard errors are equivalent to the ones yielded by classical structural equation modelling. On the other hand, the parameters generated with informative priors vary according to the prior means but the standard errors are diminished consistently for all estimates, in comparison with the ones provided from classical structural equation modelling and Bayesian structural equation modelling with non-informative priors. The posterior distributions after being updated by the informative priors appear to be more normal owing to a decrease in skewness and kurtosis; moreover, the ones produced from Model B, which has the highest non-normality, are most affected by the informative priors according to the change in skewness and kurtosis.

Suggested Citation

  • Chonu, Gi Kunchana, 2013. "Comparison between Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Estimation in Structural Equation Modelling and Effects of Informative Priors," Thesis Commons xef3g_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:thesis:xef3g_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/xef3g_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6088b69d7166fa01e9e8c1ce/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/xef3g_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:thesis:xef3g_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://thesiscommons.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.