we generated approximately 105,000 samples), it is common for all estimated ef
-
fects to drastically exceed traditional significance levels. It is thus important to in
-
terpret the meaningfulness of effects using effect sizes as well.
CONCLUSION
Monte Carlo simulations are growing in popularity, as researchers consider the
small sample properties of estimators and goodness-of-fit statistics in SEM. Al
-
thoughevery simulation is different, they also hold many features in common. This
article attempted to provide an overview of the design and implementation of
Monte Carlo simulations for structural equation models with the goal of aiding fu
-
ture researchers in their projects. We used a running example throughout the article
to provide a concrete example of a working Monte Carlo project. Researchers are
likely to encounter many unique situations in their own modeling, but we hope that
this article provides a useful general orientation to get them started.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solu-
tions, and goodness of fit indices for MLE CFA. Psychometrika, 49,155–173.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations program manual (Version 5.0). Los Angeles: BMDP
Statistical Software.
Beyer, W. H. (1984). CRC standard mathematical tables (27th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Bollen, K. A. (1996). An alternative 2SLS estimator for latent variable models. Psychometrika, 61,
109–121.
Chen, F., Bollen,K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., & Kirby, J. (forthcoming). Improper solutionsin structural
equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods and Research.
Cleveland, W. S. (1993). Visualizing data. Summit, NJ: Hobart Press.
Curran,P.J.(1994). The robustness of confirmatory factor analysis to modelmisspecificationandviola
-
tions of normality. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 1220.
Curran,P.J.,West,S. G., & Finch, J. (1996). The robustnessofteststatisticstonon-normality and speci
-
fication error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.
Gentle, J. E. (1985). Monte Carlomethods. In S. Kotz& N. L. Johnson(Eds.), The encyclopedia of sta
-
tistical sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 612–617). New York: Wiley.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for struc
-
tural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.
40–65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hox, J. J. (1995). AMOS, EQS, and LISREL for windows: A comparative approach. Structural Equa
-
tion Modeling, 1, 79–91.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
Kennedy, P. (1992). A guide to econometrics (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of
sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.
MONTE CARLO DESIGN
309
Downloaded by [University North Carolina - Chapel Hill] at 11:47 03 September 2014