Dear all,
Reading many posts and some recommended lectures, I tried to make a model based on a complex survey sample (lavaan.survey) from an MLR estimation method (assuming that varaibles used are not distributed normally). The specification I made it's very theory-driven, and my hypothesis are that the presence of Vulnerability (vul) will be associated with more scores Psychological Distress (k6_2), Vulnerability also will have an effect on the Workplace Bullying Scores (NAQ_sum), controlling on the presence of ISOSTRAIN (iso), Unbalance of Efforts and Rewards (desbalance_dic), Socioeconomical Level (gse_ac3), indirect effect on Psychological Distress (k6_2), economic constraint/narrowness (estrechez), lower job satisfaction (satlab_rec) and presence of Authoritarian Leadership (LA_Leyman). Workplace Bullying Scores (NAQ_sum) acts as a mediator to account for indirect effects on Psychological Distress (k6_2).
modelo_simple_final <- "# direct effect
k6_2 ~ c*vul
# mediator
NAQ_sum ~ a*vul + iso + desbalance_dic + gse_ac3 + estrechez + satlab_rec + LA_Leyman
k6_2 ~ b*NAQ_sum
#indirect effect (a*b)
ab := a*b
total effect:= c + (a*b) "
Given that, I runned the model.
SEM_final <- sem(modelo_simple_final, data=BD_13_02_19, estimator="MLR")
Then I defined the summary with the main statistics.
Optimization method NLMINB
Number of free parameters 13
Number of observations 1694
Estimator ML Robust
Model Fit Test Statistic 81.585 8.029
Degrees of freedom 6 6
P-value (Chi-square) 0.000 0.236
Scaling correction factor 10.161
for the Satorra-Bentler correction
Model test baseline model:
Minimum Function Test Statistic 1128.166 211.741
Degrees of freedom 15 15
P-value 0.000 0.000
User model versus baseline model:
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.932 0.990
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.830 0.974
Robust Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.980
Robust Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.951
Loglikelihood and Information Criteria:
Loglikelihood user model (H0) -16712.148 -16712.148
Loglikelihood unrestricted model (H1) -16671.355 -16671.355
Number of free parameters 13 13
Akaike (AIC) 33450.296 33450.296
Bayesian (BIC) 33520.949 33520.949
Sample-size adjusted Bayesian (BIC) 33479.649 33479.649
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation:
RMSEA 0.086 0.014
90 Percent Confidence Interval 0.070 0.103 0.003 0.022
P-value RMSEA <= 0.05 0.000 1.000
Robust RMSEA 0.045
90 Percent Confidence Interval NA 0.117
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual:
SRMR 0.027 0.027
R-Square:
Estimate
k6_2 0.189
NAQ_sum 0.336
Defined Parameters:
Estimate Std.Err z-value P(>|z|) Std.lv Std.all
ab 0.419 0.091 4.588 0.000 0.419 0.050
totaleffect 1.548 0.231 6.695 0.000 1.548 0.185
medab <- 'a*b'
medabc <- ' c + a*b'
fit_SEM_final_ab <- semTools::monteCarloMed(medab,object=SEM_final_svy, rep=20000, CI=95, plot=TRUE)
fit_SEM_final_abc <- semTools::monteCarloMed(medabc,object=SEM_final_svy, rep=20000, CI=95, plot=TRUE)
print(fit_SEM_final_ab)
print(fit_SEM_final_abc)
My main questions are:
- Why the lavaan survey model gets better fit measures than the original model? Is it mandatory to expand variance and error terms?
- Do I need to work with and interpret standarized coefficients if the variables are defined in different scales?
- To get bias-corrected CI estimates of direct and indirect effects on lavan survey, ¿can I use montecarloMed?
- Is it possible to use it on standarized effects? Is it reccomended (on bootstrap method, many authors recommend to use the standarized)?
- How to interpret results when my exogenous variable (Vulnerability) is dichotomic (presence or absence).
Thank you so much in advance.