Abstract

Despite clear evidence that manifest variable path analysis requires highly reliable measures, path analyses with fallible measures are commonplace even in premier journals. Using fallible measures in path analysis can cause several serious problems: (a) As measurement error pervades a given data set, many path coefficients may be either over- or underestimated. (b) Extensive measurement error diminishes power and can prevent invalid models from being rejected. (c) Even a little measurement error can cause valid models to appear invalid. (d) Differential measurement error in various parts of a model can change the substantive conclusions that derive from path analysis. (e) All of these problems become increasingly serious and intractable as models become more complex. Methods to prevent and correct these problems are reviewed. The conclusion is that researchers should use more reliable measures (or correct for measurement error in the measures they do use), obtain multiple measures for use in latent variable modeling, and test simpler models containing fewer variables.

Keywords

Path analysis (statistics)Observational errorPath (computing)Variable (mathematics)Latent variableType I and type II errorsStatisticsErrors-in-variables modelsComputer scienceEconometricsError analysisMathematicsApplied mathematics

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Publication Info

Year
2013
Type
article
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
300-315
Citations
425
Access
Closed

External Links

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

425
OpenAlex

Cite This

David A. Cole, Kristopher J. Preacher (2013). Manifest variable path analysis: Potentially serious and misleading consequences due to uncorrected measurement error.. Psychological Methods , 19 (2) , 300-315. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033805

Identifiers

DOI
10.1037/a0033805