IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/sfb373/200248.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Monte Carlo study of structural equation models for finite mixtures

Author

Listed:
  • Williams, John
  • Temme, Dirk
  • Hildebrandt, Lutz

Abstract

Empirical applications of structural equation modeling (SEM) typically rest on the assumption that the analysed sample is homogenous with respect to the underlying structural model or that homogenous subsamples have been formed based on a priori knowledge. However, researchers often are ignorant about the true causes of heterogeneity and thus risk to produce misleading results. Using a sequential procedure of cluster analysis in combination with multi-group SEM has been shown to be inappropriate to solve the problem of unobserved heterogeneity. Recently, two encouraging approaches have been developed in this regard: (1) Finite mixtures of structural equation models and (2) hierarchical Bayesian estimation. In this paper, we focus exclusively on the MECOSA approach to finite normal mixtures subject to conditional mean and covariance structures. Since not much is known about the performance of MECOSA, which is both a specific odel and a software, we present the results of an extensive Monte Carlo simulation. It was found that MECOSA performed best where homogenous groups were present in the data in equal proportions and in conjunction with rather large differences in parameters across the groups. MECOSA performed worse when the proportions were unequal and parameters were relatively close together across groups. Of the three estimation methods available in MECOSA the two-stage minimum distance estimation (MDE) in general performed worse than the alternative EM algorithms (EM and EMG). This effect was especially pronounced under conditions of close parameters and unequal group proportions. Above that, for these conditions the modified likelihood ratio test turned out to be inappropriate in the three groups case.

Suggested Citation

  • Williams, John & Temme, Dirk & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2002. "A Monte Carlo study of structural equation models for finite mixtures," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,48, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb373:200248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/65330/1/726717835.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Görz, Nicole & Hildebrandt, Lutz & Annacker, Dirk, 2000. "Analyzing multigroup data with structural equation models," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2000,11, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    2. Conor Dolan & Han Maas, 1998. "Fitting multivariage normal finite mixtures subject to structural equation modeling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 63(3), pages 227-253, September.
    3. Asim Ansari & Kamel Jedidi & Sharan Jagpal, 2000. "A Hierarchical Bayesian Methodology for Treating Heterogeneity in Structural Equation Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 328-347, August.
    4. Kamel Jedidi & Harsharanjeet S. Jagpal & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 1997. "Finite-Mixture Structural Equation Models for Response-Based Segmentation and Unobserved Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 39-59.
    5. Gerhard Arminger & Petra Stein & Jörg Wittenberg, 1999. "Mixtures of conditional mean- and covariance-structure models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 475-494, December.
    6. Bengt Muthén & Kerby Shedden, 1999. "Finite Mixture Modeling with Mixture Outcomes Using the EM Algorithm," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 463-469, June.
    7. G. J. McLachlan, 1987. "On Bootstrapping the Likelihood Ratio Test Statistic for the Number of Components in a Normal Mixture," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 36(3), pages 318-324, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Temme, Dirk & Williams, John R. & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2002. "Structural equation models for finite mixtures: Simulation results and empirical applications," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,33, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    2. Marko Sarstedt & Christian Ringle, 2010. "Treating unobserved heterogeneity in PLS path modeling: a comparison of FIMIX-PLS with different data analysis strategies," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(8), pages 1299-1318.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Temme, Dirk & Williams, John R. & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2002. "Structural equation models for finite mixtures: Simulation results and empirical applications," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,33, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    2. Bacci, Silvia & Bartolucci, Francesco & Pieroni, Luca, 2012. "A causal analysis of mother’s education on birth inequalities," MPRA Paper 38754, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Fokoué, Ernest, 2005. "Mixtures of factor analyzers: an extension with covariates," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 370-384, August.
    4. Jolynn Pek & R. Philip Chalmers & Bethany E. Kok & Diane Losardo, 2015. "Visualizing Confidence Bands for Semiparametrically Estimated Nonlinear Relations Among Latent Variables," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 40(4), pages 402-423, August.
    5. Anders Skrondal & Sophia Rabe‐Hesketh, 2007. "Latent Variable Modelling: A Survey," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 34(4), pages 712-745, December.
    6. Terry Elrod & Gerald Häubl & Steven Tipps, 2012. "Parsimonious Structural Equation Models for Repeated Measures Data, with Application to the Study of Consumer Preferences," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 358-387, April.
    7. Cai, Jing-Heng & Song, Xin-Yuan & Lam, Kwok-Hap & Ip, Edward Hak-Sing, 2011. "A mixture of generalized latent variable models for mixed mode and heterogeneous data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(11), pages 2889-2907, November.
    8. Yuan Liu & Hongyun Liu, 2019. "Effects of Distance and Shape on the Estimation of the Piecewise Growth Mixture Model," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 36(3), pages 659-677, October.
    9. Kim, Sung Hoo & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2023. "Finite mixture (or latent class) modeling in transportation: Trends, usage, potential, and future directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 134-173.
    10. Eisenbeiss, Maik & Blechschmidt, Boris & Backhaus, Klaus & Freund, Philipp Alexander, 2012. "“The (Real) World Is Not Enough:” Motivational Drivers and User Behavior in Virtual Worlds," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 4-20.
    11. Dylan Molenaar, 2015. "Heteroscedastic Latent Trait Models for Dichotomous Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 625-644, September.
    12. Hong-Tu Zhu & Sik-Yum Lee, 2001. "A Bayesian analysis of finite mixtures in the LISREL model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 133-152, March.
    13. Zrelli, Imen & Demnati, Haykel & Ben Yedder, Moez, 2019. "The effect of the interaction between tariff modulation and transparency on the customer's dissatisfaction: The case of Tunisia," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-10.
    14. Casey Codd & Robert Cudeck, 2014. "Nonlinear Random-Effects Mixture Models for Repeated Measures," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 60-83, January.
    15. Zhou, Min & Zhao, Lindu & Kong, Nan & Campy, Kathryn S. & Xu, Ge & Zhu, Guiju & Cao, Xianye & Wang, Song, 2020. "Understanding consumers’ behavior to adopt self-service parcel services for last-mile delivery," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    16. Rajdeep Grewal & Joseph A. Cote & Hans Baumgartner, 2004. "Multicollinearity and Measurement Error in Structural Equation Models: Implications for Theory Testing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 519-529, June.
    17. Kiero Guerra-Peña & Zoilo Emilio García-Batista & Sarah Depaoli & Luis Eduardo Garrido, 2020. "Class enumeration false positive in skew-t family of continuous growth mixture models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
    18. Heike Heidemeier & Anja Göritz, 2013. "Individual Differences in How Work and Nonwork Life Domains Contribute to Life Satisfaction: Using Factor Mixture Modeling for Classification," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 1765-1788, December.
    19. Latan, Hengky & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz & de Camargo Fiorini, Paula & Foropon, Cyril, 2020. "Innovative efforts of ISO 9001-certified manufacturing firms: Evidence of links between determinants of innovation, continuous innovation and firm performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    20. Maciejowska, Katarzyna, 2013. "Assessing the number of components in a normal mixture: an alternative approach," MPRA Paper 50303, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:zbw:sfb373:200248. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfhubde.html .

    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.