scholarly journals Measuring hedonia and eudaimonia as motives for activities: cross-national investigation through traditional and Bayesian structural equation modeling

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Bujacz ◽  
Joar Vittersø ◽  
Veronika Huta ◽  
Lukasz D. Kaczmarek
2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorota Reis

Abstract. Interoception is defined as an iterative process that refers to receiving, accessing, appraising, and responding to body sensations. Recently, following an extensive process of development, Mehling and colleagues (2012) proposed a new instrument, the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA), which captures these different aspects of interoception with eight subscales. The aim of this study was to reexamine the dimensionality of the MAIA by applying maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (ML-CFA), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM). ML-CFA, ESEM, and BSEM were examined in a sample of 320 German adults. ML-CFA showed a poor fit to the data. ESEM yielded a better fit and contained numerous significant cross-loadings, of which one was substantial (≥ .30). The BSEM model with approximate zero informative priors yielded an excellent fit and confirmed the substantial cross-loading found in ESEM. The study demonstrates that ESEM and BSEM are flexible techniques that can be used to improve our understanding of multidimensional constructs. In addition, BSEM can be seen as less exploratory than ESEM and it might also be used to overcome potential limitations of ESEM with regard to more complex models relative to the sample size.


2021 ◽  
Vol 229 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Wedderhoff ◽  
Timo Gnambs ◽  
Oliver Wedderhoff ◽  
Tanja Burgard ◽  
Michael Bošnjak

Abstract. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988 ) is a popular self-report questionnaire that is administered all over the world. Though originally developed to measure two independent factors, different models have been proposed in the literature. Comparisons among alternative models as well as analyses concerning their robustness in cross-national research have left an inconclusive picture. Therefore, the present study evaluates the dimensionality of the PANAS and differences between English and translated versions of the PANAS using a meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Correlation matrices from 57 independent samples ( N = 54,043) were pooled across subsamples. For both English and non-English samples, a correlated two-factor model including correlated uniquenesses provided the best fit. However, measurement invariance analyses indicated differences in factor loadings between subsamples. Thus, cross-national application of the PANAS might only be justified if measurement equivalence was explicitly tested for the countries at hand.


2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 619-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pim Edelaar ◽  
David Serrano ◽  
Martina Carrete ◽  
Julio Blas ◽  
Jaime Potti ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi ◽  
Peyman Babashamsi ◽  
Datis Khajeheian ◽  
Nader Seyyed Amiri

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara van Erp ◽  
Joris Mulder ◽  
Daniel L. Oberski

Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM) has recently gained popularity because it enables researchers to fit complex models while solving some of the issues often encountered in classical maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, such as nonconvergence and inadmissible solutions. An important component of any Bayesian analysis is the prior distribution of the unknown model parameters. Often, researchers rely on default priors, which are constructed in an automatic fashion without requiring substantive prior information. However, the prior can have a serious influence on the estimation of the model parameters, which affects the mean squared error (MSE), bias, coverage rates, and quantiles of the estimates.In this paper, we investigate the performance of three different default priors: noninformative improper priors, vague proper priors, and empirical Bayes priors, with the latter being novel in the BSEM literature. Based on a simulation study, we find that these three default BSEM methods may perform very differently, especially with small samples. A careful prior sensitivity analysis is therefore needed when performing a default BSEM analysis. For this purpose, we provide a practical step-by-step guide for practitioners to conducting a prior sensitivity analysis in default BSEM. Our recommendations are illustrated using a well-known case study from the structural equation modeling literature and all code for conducting the prior sensitivity analysis is made available in the online supplemental material.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document