請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/55018完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 翁儷禎(Li-Jen Weng) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tian Yang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 楊天 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T03:44:30Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2015-03-13 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2015-03-13 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2015-02-09 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Bandalos, R. L. & Gagne, P. (2012).Simulation methods in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 92-110). New York: Guilford Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588−606. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303-316. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (Ed.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA:Sage. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R.A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 205. Box, G. E. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71, 791-799. Browne, M. W. (1982). Covariance structures. In D. M. Hawkins (Ed.), Topics in applied multivariate analysis (pp. 72-141). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotic distribution free methods in the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62−83. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230-258. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Ed.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136−162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cudeck, R., & Browne, M. W. (1983). Cross-validation of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 147-167. Cudeck, R. & Henly, S. J. (1991). Model selection in covariance structures analysis and the 'problem' of sample size: A clarification. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 512-519. Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Kirby, J., & Chen, F. (2002). The noncentral chi-square distribution in misspecified structural equation models: Finite sample results from a Monte Carlo simulation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37, 1-36. Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1-26. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall. Enders, C. K. (2002). Applying the Bollen-Stine bootstrap for goodness-of-fit measures to structural equation models with missing data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37, 359-377. Enders, C. K. (2005). A SAS macro for implementing the modified Bollen-Stine bootstrap for missing data: Implementing the bootstrap using existing structural equation modeling software. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 620-641. Guo, B., Perron, B. E., & Gillespie, D. F. (2009). A systematic review of structural equation modeling in social work research. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 1556-1574. Hancock, G. R., & Freeman, M. J. (2001). Power and sample size for the root mean square error of approximation test of not close fit in structural equation modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 741-758. Herzog, W., & Boomsma, A. (2009). Small-sample robust estimators of noncentrality-based and incremental model fit. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 1-27. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1−55. Ichikawa, M., & Konishi, S. (1995). Application of the bootstrap methods in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 60, 77–93. Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy Jr, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychological methods, 14, 6. Joreskog, K. G. (1967). Some Contributions to maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 443-482. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Kirk, R. E. (2013). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lee, T., Cai, L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2012). Power analysis for tests of structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 181-194). New York: Guilford Press. Lei, P. W., & Wu, Q. (2012). Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 181-194). New York: Guilford Press. MacCallum, R. C. (2003). 2001 presidential address: Working with imperfect models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 113-139. 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. McDonald, R. P. (1989). An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality. Journal of Classification, 6, 97-103. McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-of-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391−411. McDonald, R. P. (2010). Structural models and the art of approximation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 675-686. Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156-166. Nevitt, J. & Hancock, G. R. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 353-377. Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Chen, F. (2001). Monte Carlo experiments: Design and implementation. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 287-312. Raykov, T. (2000). On the large-sample bias, variance, and mean squared error of the conventional noncentrality parameter estimator of covariance structure models. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 431–441. Raykov, T. (2005). Bias-corrected estimation of noncentrality parameters of covariance structure models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 120–129. Satorra, A. & Saris, W. (1985). Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 83-90. Satorra, A. (1989). Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach. Psychometrika, 54, 131-151. Shah R., & Gildstein S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 148-169. Steiger, J. H., Shapiro, A., & Browne, M. W. (1985). On the asymptotic distribution of sequential chi-square statistics. Psychometrika, 50, 253–264. Steiger, J. H. (1989). EzPATH: A supplementary module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT. Steiger, J. H. (2000). Point estimation, hypothesis testing, and interval estimation using the RMSEA: Some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 149-162. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual Spring meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10. Yuan, K.-H., Hayashi, K. (2003). Bootstrap approach to inference and power analysis based on three test statistics for covariance structure models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 56, 93-110. Zhang, W. (2008). A comparison of four estimators of a population measure of model fit in covariance structure analysis. Structual Equation Modeling,15, 301-326. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/55018 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 非中參數估計在結構方程模型使用中扮演重要角色。然慣用的非中參數估計式存在偏誤,Raykov(2000)的推導指出非中參數慣用法之偏誤,及其大變異量和高均方誤差,並於2005年提出一非中參數拔靴偏誤校正估計式。非中參數奠基於卡方檢定量在對立假設下之大樣本分配,故其受樣本量與模型誤設程度之影響。為充分評估估計式之表現,亦將模型類型納入考量。因此,本研究採蒙地卡羅模擬方法,藉由操弄樣本量、模型誤設程度與模型類型,以評估比較非中參數慣用估計式(δ ̂)、基於拔靴偏誤校正概念之Raykov(2005)非中參數估計式(δ ̂_bc)與本研究提出之另一拔靴偏誤校正估計式(δ ̃_bc)三者的綜合表現。結果顯示,三非中參數估計式之偏誤、相對偏誤、標準差與均方根誤差主要受模型誤設程度影響,亦受樣本量影響。三估計式相對偏誤之絕對值均隨模型誤設程度和樣本量的增加而減小,標準差與均方根誤差則隨模型誤設程度和樣本量增加變大。δ ̂與δ ̃_bc表現相近,而δ ̂_bc出現過度校正的現象。模型正確時,δ ̂_bc的偏誤幾近於零,然於其他情境則易低估非中參數,其相對偏誤絕對值大都高於δ ̂與δ ̃_bc。δ ̂_bc之標準差基本上較小,然由於偏誤之影響,其均方根誤差於多數情況均較另兩估計式為大。綜整而言,於真實模型中,δ ̂_bc更接近真實值;然除真實模型和誤設程度很小之模型外,δ ̂與δ ̃_bc之偏誤與相對偏誤絕對值和均均方根誤差均較小。考量δ ̂於本研究展現之特性及其計算之簡便性,目前三估計式中仍推薦非中參數慣用估計法,然亦期待於未來能有更佳估計式之發展,以利結構方程模型之應用與分析。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Noncentrality parameter (NCP) plays an important role in evaluating structural equation models. The present simulation study compared the behaviors of three estimators of NCP. Raykov (2000) showed that the conventional noncentrality parameter estimator possessed asymptotically potentially large bias, variance, and mean squared error, and further developed a bias-corrected bootstrap estimator (Raykov, 2005) as a possible alternative for the conventional estimator. The noncentrality parameter is based on the asymptotic distribution of the chi-square test statistic under alternative hypothesis and is affected by sample size and degree of model misspecification. This Monte Carlo research therefore systematically manipulated degree of model misspecification, sample size and model type to evaluate the performance of the conventional noncentrality parameter estimator (δ ̂), Raykov’s bias-corrected bootstrap estimator (δ ̂_bc) and another bias-corrected bootstrap estimator proposed in this study (δ ̃_bc). The results showed that degree of model misspecification demonstrated the largest effect on the bias, relative bias, standard deviation and root mean squared error of these three noncentrality parameter estimators, followed by sample size. Absolute relative bias of these three estimators decreased with increasing sample size and degree of model misspecification, while their standard deviations and root mean squared errors increased with larger sample sizes and more severe model misspecifications. Raykov’s δ ̂_bc showed little bias under true models and tended to underestimate the true NCP value in other conditions, resulting in large absolute relative bias compared to the other two estimators. Although the standard deviation of δ ̂_bc was less than δ ̂ and δ ̃_bc, its root mean squared error was larger due to its bias. The other two estimators, δ ̂ and δ ̃_bc, performed similarly. Their absolute biases, absolute relative biases and mean squared errors were smaller than δ ̂_bc except for true models and very mild model misspecifications. The conventional NCP estimator is thus recommended considering its ease of computation and the behaviors shown in this simulation study. Further development of alternative estimators for this critical quantity in structural equation modeling is also encouraged. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T03:44:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-R01227124-1.pdf: 637499 bytes, checksum: e96f077d3667840d522c1a99014b9d1f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 前言 1 第二節 結構方程模型與非中參數 2 第三節 非中參數之估計法 6 第四節 本研究之目的 8 第二章 研究方法 10 第一節 研究變項 10 第二節 研究程序 14 第三節 資料分析 15 第三章 研究結果 17 第一節 模型參數估計未收斂之情形 17 第二節 非中參數估計式之偏誤與相對偏誤 17 第三節 非中參數估計式之標準差與均方誤差 26 第四章 結論與討論 31 第一節 非中參數估計式之表現 31 第二節 非中參數估計法之使用建議 32 第三節 研究限制與未來研究方向 33 參考文獻 34 附錄一 三模式下非中參數三估計式於各情境之偏誤 38 附錄二 三模式下非中參數三估計式於各情境之相對偏誤 41 附錄三 三模式下非中參數三估計式於各情境之標準差 44 附錄四 三模式下非中參數三估計式於各情境之均方根誤差 47 附錄五 三模式各模型設定之適配度指標數值 50 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 非中參數 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 拔靴法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 結構方程模型 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | noncentrality parameter | en |
| dc.subject | bootstrap | en |
| dc.subject | structural equation modeling | en |
| dc.title | 結構方程模型非中參數之估計:慣用法與拔靴法之比較 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Comparing the Conventional and Bootstrap Estimators of Noncentrality Parameter in Structural Equation Modeling | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 103-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 丁承,李俊霆 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 非中參數,拔靴法,結構方程模型, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | noncentrality parameter,bootstrap,structural equation modeling, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 55 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2015-02-09 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 心理學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-104-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 622.56 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
