workshop on meta-analytic structural equation...
TRANSCRIPT
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Workshop onMeta-analytic Structural Equation Modeling
Mike W.-L. Cheung, PhDDepartment of Psychology
National University of Singaporehttp://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/psycwlm/internet/masem.zip
28 August 200928 August 2009
Acknowledgment: I thank the Centre for Instructional Technology (CIT) at NUS for providing the technical support.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 2
Outline of the workshop• What is SEM?
– A general technique to model multivariate data• What is MASEM?
– A technique combining meta-analysis and SEM to synthesize research findings
• What approaches are available for MASEM?– Univariate (r and z) vs. multivariate (GLS and
TSSEM) approaches• What is TSSEM?
– A “pure” SEM approach to conduct MASEM• What is SEM-based meta-analysis?
– A SEM approach for general meta-analysis
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 3
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
• Some of its special cases: Regression analysis, path analysis, factor analysis and latent growth models, etc.
• Most models can be represented by path diagrams.
Multiple regression Path analysis Confirmatory factor analysis Structural equation model
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 4
Why SEM?• It can be used to test whether or not a proposed model
(theory) is consistent with the data.• Many advanced techniques have been integrated into
SEM, e.g.,– analysis of categorical data;– mixture modeling;– multilevel modeling;– analysis of missing data with maximum likelihood;– meta-analysis, etc.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 5
Steps in conducting SEM• Inputs: Raw data, covariance or correlation
matrices• Procedures: Model fitting and model modification• Outputs:
– Overall goodness-of-fit indices: 2, GFI, CFI, NNFI, RMSEA, etc.
– Parameter estimates and their standard errors (SEs)
5.33.3 6 . 43.0 2 . 8 4 . 54 .1 3 . 2 2. 6 5. 9 D1
.75**
.59**
-.31**-.24**
-.15**
Results: 2(21)=32.3, p=.05, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.034
-.24**
P1
D2
P2
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 6
Problems in individual studies• Low statistical power of most empirical studies in
psychology;• Confirmation bias: reluctant to consider alternative
models in SEM; and• Different researchers may propose different models
supported by their own data
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 7
Need to synthesize research findings• A major problem in scientific research: how to
compare and combine research findings?• Conducting more empirical studies does not
necessarily decrease the uncertainty of a particular topic if these findings are inconsistent;
• There is a need to integrate the research findings for the advance of theory
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 8
Three objectives in meta-analysis
• To test if the effect sizes are consistent across studies;
• To estimate a pooled effect size;• To identify potential moderators.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 9
Meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM)
• MASEM combines techniques of meta-analysis and SEM (e.g., Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995).
• It can be used to synthesize studies in SEM.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 10
Advantages of MASEM
• To address the generalizability of the findings across settings;
• To identify potential moderators that influence the structure of the model;
• To obtain more precise estimates by increasing the sample size.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 11
An example using MASEM
• Brown and Stayman (1992): Antecedents and consequences of attitudes toward the advertisement (Ad)– No. of variables: 5– No. of studies: 47– Pooled sample size across studies: +4,600
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 12
Ad cognitions Ad attitude
Brand cognitions Brand attitude Purchase intention
Dual mediation hypothesis
Ad cognitions Ad attitude
Brand cognitions Brand attitude Purchase intention
Affect transfer hypothesis
Ad cognitions Ad attitude
Brand cognitions Brand attitude Purchase intention
Reciprocal mediation hypothesis
Ad cognitions Ad attitude
Brand cognitions Brand attitude Purchase intention
Independent influences hypothesis
.52
.57.34
.20 .73
Four alternative models of Ad attitude
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 13
Another example in cross-cultural research
• Cheung, Leung, and Au (2006) are interested in the whether the factor structure of social axioms is applicable across different cultural groups.
• 7,590 university students from 40 cultural groups were collected (Leung & Bond, 2004).
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 14
• Items:– Social cynicism (CYN): 11 items – Social complexity (COM): 6 items– Reward for application (REW): 9 items – Religiosity (REL): 7 items– Fate control (FAT): 6 items
cyn1
cyn11
CYN
com1
com6
COM
rew1
rew9
REW
rel1
rel7
REL
fat1
fat6
FAT
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 15
Results for MASEM
– First stage: Homogeneity of correlation matrices• 2(28,899, N=7,590) = 41,132, p < .0001• RMSEA = 0.047
– Second stage: Fitting a five-factor model• 2(692, N=7,590) = 6,653, p < .0001• RMSEA = 0.034, SRMR = 0.046
– The results support that the five-factor model fits well across 40 cultural groups.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 16
Steps of conducting MASEM
• Two-stage approach:– First stage: Similar to conventional meta-analysis
• To test the homogeneity of correlation matrices;• To estimate the pooled correlation matrix
– Second stage: Similar to conventional SEM• To fit and compare models based on the pooled
correlation matrix
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 17
An artificial example
1 . 0. 60 1. 0. 43 .44 1 . 0. 36 .22 . 19 1. 0
1 . 0-- --. 32 -- 1.0.31 -- .14 1 .0 1 . 0
. 49 1 .0
. 35 . 37 1. 0
. 40 . 27 .15 1 . 0Stage 1: Are they homogeneous?
1 . 0. 58 1 .0. 37 . 40 1. 0. 38 . 24 .18 1 . 0
Stage 2: Which model fits the data best?
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 18
Approaches for MASEM
• Stage 1: Univariate approaches– Based on individual correlation coefficients;– Repeat it for all correlation coefficients;– Hunter and Schmidt (2004): Averaging
correlation coefficients (univariate r)– Hedges and Olkin (1985): Averaging Fisher’s z
scores (univariate z)
1 . 0. 60 1. 0. 43 . 44 1 . 0. 36 . 22 . 19 1. 0
1 . 0-- --. 32 -- 1. 0.31 -- .14 1 . 01 . 0
. 49 1 .0
. 35 . 37 1 . 0
. 40 . 27 . 15 1 . 0 1 . 0
. 58 1 . 0
. 37 . 40 1 . 0
. 38 . 24 . 18 1 . 0
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 19
Stage 1: Univariate r approach
• Estimate a pooled correlation with weighted correlations:
rij=∑k=1
g
nk rijk
∑k=1
g
nk
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 20
Stage 1: Univariate z approach
• Estimate a pooled correlation with weighted Fisher-z scores:
zijk =0.5 log
1rijk
1−rijk
zij=∑k=1
g
nk −3 z ijk
∑k=1
g
nk −3
rij=exp 2∗zij −1exp 2∗zij 1
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 21
Advantages and limitations of the univariate approaches
• Advantage:– Simple to learn.
• Limitations:– Do not acknowledge the dependence of the
correlation coefficients;– Empirical performance in simulation studies is
not very good (see Cheung & Chan, 2005a)
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 22
• Correlation matrix is used in fitting SEM (Cudeck, 1989)– Chi-square statistics and/or standard errors may be incorrect for
some models.• The pooled correlation matrix may be non-positive
definite.• Different results for different sample sizes (N):
– Arithmetic mean; – Median;– Harmonic mean; – Total.
Advantages and limitations of the univariate approaches
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 23
• Stage 1: Multivariate approaches – Generalized least squares (GLS; e.g., Becker,
1992; Cheung, S.-F., 2000; Furlow & Beretvas, 2005; Hafdahl, 2001)
– Two-stage structural equation modeling (TSSEM; Cheung, 2002; Cheung & Chan, 2005a; 2009)
– Based on all correlation coefficients and their dependence
1 . 0. 60 1. 0. 43 . 44 1 . 0. 36 . 22 . 19 1. 0
1 . 0-- --. 32 -- 1. 0.31 -- .14 1 . 01 . 0
. 49 1 .0
. 35 . 37 1 . 0
. 40 . 27 . 15 1 . 0 1 . 0
. 58 1 . 0
. 37 . 40 1 . 0
. 38 . 24 . 18 1 . 0
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 24
Stage 1: GLS approach• Model:
•• where K is the design matrix and var(e) is the
sampling covariance matrix of r (Olkin & Siotani, 1976)
• The studies are “stacked” together.• Parameter estimates:
r=K e
R=1. 0. 46 1. 0.31 .55 1.0 r=.46
.31
.55 =var e=0.00610.0008 0.00800.0020 0.0037 0.0091
=K '−1K −1K '−1 r
K=1. 0 0 00 1 .0 00 0 1. 0
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 25
Advantages and limitations of the multivariate approaches
• Advantage:– Theoretically appealing as they consider the
dependence among the correlation coefficients.• Limitations:
– GLS: empirical performance is not very good in simulation studies (see Cheung & Chan, 2005a)
– TSSEM: More difficult to learn as a full SEM approach is used.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 26
What is TSSEM?
• Two-stage structural equation modeling (TSSEM) uses a “pure” SEM approach to conduct MASEM.
• It has good statistical properties when compared to other conventional approaches.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 27
Analysis of correlation matrix in SEM• Correlation coefficients can be analyzed as a
confirmatory factor analytic model.• Between- and within- comparisons on correlation
coefficients can be made (Cheung & Chan, 2004).
1.00
F1
x 1
SD1
0.00
F2
x 2
1.00
SD2
0.00
F3
x 3
1.00
SD3
0.00
f12 f23
f13
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 28
Stage 1 of TSSEM
• Multiple-group SEM;• Advantage: Missing data are handled effectively
with maximum likelihood method (Muthén, Kaplan, & Hollis, 1987).
1.0.19.22.361.0.44.43
1.0.601.0
1.0.14.311.0.32
1.0
1.0.15.27.401.0.37.35
1.0.491.0
1.0.18.24.381.0.40.37
1.0.581.0
x1
1.00
f1
0.00
x2
f2
0.00
1.00
x3
f3
0.00
1.00
x4
f4
0.00
1.00
x1
1.00
f1
0.00
x2
f2
0.00
1.00
x3
f3
0.00
1.00
x4
f4
0.00
1.00
x1
f1
x3
f3
x4
f4
1.00
0.00 0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
x1
1.00
f1
0.00
x2
f2
0.00
1.00
x3
f3
0.00
1.00
x4
f4
0.00
1.00
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 29
• After the stage 1 analysis, we have a pooled correlation matrix and its asymptotic covariance matrix. For example,– A 4x4 pooled correlation matrix– A 6x6 asymptotic covariance matrix
• The asymptotic covariance matrix indicates the precision of the pooled correlation matrix.
P=1. 0. 58 1 . 0. 37 . 40 1 . 0. 38 . 24 .18 1 .0
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 30
Stage 2 of TSSEM
• SEM with weighted least squares (WLS) method, also known as asymptotically distribution free (ADF) method, as the estimation method;
• The asymptotic covariance matrix is used as the inverse of the weight matrix;
• The total sample sizes is used as the sample size in fitting SEM.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 31
Data and programs for TSSEM• Data requirement for MASEM:
– Raw data;– Correlation matrices (Cheung & Chan, 2005a);– Covariance matrices (Cheung & Chan, 2009)
• LISREL student version: http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/student.html
• A TSSEM program:– A program to generate LISREL code and to do the
necessary data manipulations– http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/psycwlm/internet/tssem.zip
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 32
A hand-on exercise• A cross-cultural data set on work-related attitudes
(Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1989).
• Individuals aged 18 years and older were sampled from 11 countries.
• The minimum and maximum sample sizes per country were 319 and 1,047, respectively.
• For demonstration, only 4 cultural groups were selected.
• Missing data were also introduced.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 33
A proposed model for testing
X1: Job security
X3: Advancement
X8: Flexible working hours
X2: Income
X7: Useful to the society
X4: Interesting job
X9: Lots of leisure time
X5: Independent work
X6: Help other people
Job Prospect
Job Nature
Time Demand
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 34
Steps in TSSEM• Prepare a data file for correlation/covariance matrices,
– For example, cor1.dat• Edit the sample cor.cfg file
– Note. If you use “abc.cfg” as the filename, the outputs will be “abc1.ls8” and “abc2.ls8”
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 35
• Data file: cor.dat• Missing variances: 1• Missing correlation: 0
Study Missing variables
Sample size
1 (Assumed no missing data)
591
2 X1, X2 656
3 X3, X4, X5 832
4 X8, X9 823
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 36
Steps in TSSEM• Stage 1 analysis:
– Run: tssem.exe -1 cor.cfg• Output: cor1.ls8
– Run: lisrel88s.exe cor1.ls8 cor1.out• Output: cor1.out, cor1.cor and cor1.ack
• Stage 2 analysis:– Run: tssem.exe -2 cor.cfg
• Output: cor2.ls8, cor2.cor and cor2.ack– Run: lisrel88s.exe cor2.ls8 cor2.out
• Output: cor2.out
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 37
• Let's try our first MASEM now ...
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 38
• Stage 1 results: cor1.out •• The chi-square statistic and goodness-of-fit indices
indicate whether the correlation matrices are homogenous.
• The correlation matrices are reasonably homogeneous.
2 57=172, p.001, RMSEA=0.054,CFI=0.97, NNFI=0.92
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 39
• Stage 2 results: cor2.out•• The proposed model fits the pooled data quite well.
2 24=379, p.001, RMSEA=0.078, CFI=1.00, NNFI=1.01
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 40
X1: Job security
X3: Advancement
X8 Flexible working hours
X2: Income
X7: Useful to the society
X4: Interesting job
X9: Lots of leisure time
X5: Independent work
X6: Help other people
Job Prospect
Job Nature
Time Demand
0.52
0.57
0.59
0.71
0.58
0.75
0.70
0.61
0.33
.54
.39
.48
The fitted model:
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 41
Common issues (FAQs) on MASEM• Should I use correlation or covariance matrices in
MASEM?– Cudeck (1989) criticized the use of correlation matrices
in SEM.– TSSEM approach analyzes correlation matrices
correctly.– Correlation matrices are usually preferred in MASEM.– Covariance matrices may also be used if the measures
are the same across studies (see Cheung & Chan, 2009; Cheung, Leung, & Au, 2006).
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 42
Common issues (FAQs) on MASEM• Should I continue to pool the correlation matrices
if the goodness-of-fit indices at Stage 1 are very poor?– It may not be a good idea to pool the studies together if
they do not share a common population correlation matrix.
– One option is to group the studies according to some study characteristics (moderators).
– Another option is to group the studies empirically with cluster analytic techniques (Cheung & Chan, 2005b).
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 43
Common issues (FAQs) on MASEM• Can I use a random-effects model for MASEM?
– Yes (see Becker, 1992).– However, the empirical performance has yet to be
evaluated.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 44
SEM-based meta-analysis• TSSEM integrates meta-analysis into SEM
because correlation/covariance matrices may also be analyzed in SEM.
• SEM-based meta-analysis can be used to conduct “conventional” meta-analysis (Cheung, 2008, 2009, in press)– Any type of effect size, e.g., standardized mean
difference, odds ratio, risk ratio, etc.– Univariate and multivariate meta-analysis;– Fixed-, random-, and mixed-effects meta-
analysis.– It can be done in Mplus.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 45
Model for univariate meta-analysis• Model: • Fixed- and random-effects estimates:
yi=iei var ei=i2
Fix=∑i=1
k
wi yi
∑i=1
k
wi
Ran=∑i=1
k
wi yi
∑i=1
k
wi
wi=1
2 i2wi=
1 i
2
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 46
Formulating a meta-analysis as a SEM• Meta-analytic data cannot be directly analyzed in
SEM because the effect sizes are distributed with a known variance.
• We can transform the effect sizes such that their variances are the same with a value of 1.0
wi0.5 yi=i∗wi
0.5wi0.5ei wi
0.5= 1i
var wi0.5ei=1.0
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 47
An illustration
• A summary of 20 simulated studies (Hox, 2002) is listed in the next table.
• Effect size: Hedges’s d• Moderator: duration of the experimental
intervention in terms of weeks
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 48
Study d var(d) weeks W^0.5 d* Intercept* weeks*
1 -0.264 0.086 3 3.41 -0.9002 3.41 10.2299
2 -0.23 0.106 1 3.0715 -0.7064 3.0715 3.0715
3 0.166 0.055 2 4.264 0.7078 4.264 8.528
4 0.173 0.084 4 3.4503 0.5969 3.4503 13.8013
5 0.225 0.071 3 3.7529 0.8444 3.7529 11.2588
6 0.291 0.078 6 3.5806 1.0419 3.5806 21.4834
7 0.309 0.051 7 4.4281 1.3683 4.4281 30.9965
8 0.435 0.093 9 3.2791 1.4264 3.2791 29.5122
9 0.476 0.149 3 2.5906 1.2331 2.5906 7.7719
10 0.617 0.095 6 3.2444 2.0018 3.2444 19.4666
11 0.651 0.11 6 3.0151 1.9628 3.0151 18.0907
12 0.718 0.054 7 4.3033 3.0898 4.3033 30.1232
13 0.74 0.081 9 3.5136 2.6001 3.5136 31.6228
14 0.745 0.084 5 3.4503 2.5705 3.4503 17.2516
15 0.758 0.087 6 3.3903 2.5699 3.3903 20.3419
16 0.922 0.103 5 3.1159 2.8728 3.1159 15.5794
17 0.938 0.113 5 2.9748 2.7904 2.9748 14.8741
18 0.962 0.083 7 3.4711 3.3392 3.4711 24.2974
19 1.522 0.1 9 3.1623 4.813 3.1623 28.4605
20 1.844 0.141 9 2.6631 4.9108 2.6631 23.9681
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 49
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5Standardized mean difference
12
7
8
2
20
1
13
19
6
14
9
18
3
5
16
4
10
15
11
17
Fixed effect model
Random effects model
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
50
A fixed-effects meta-analysis
Key points:1. Error variance on y* is fixed
at 1;1. The intercept is represented
by X0*
Results:1. The weighted effect size b0 is
0.550 (0.065).
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
51
A fixed-effects meta-analysis with a covariate
Key points:1. X0*: intercept2. X1*: moderator (weeks)
Results:1. The intercept and the slope (for weeks) are -0.204 (0.170) and 0.135 (0.028).2. When “weeks” increases oneunit, the effect size increases by0.135 unit.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
52
A random-effects meta-analysis
Key points:1. u is the random effect2. Random slope analysis is
required (Mehta & Neale, 2005 )3. b0 is the weighted effect size4. m is the variance component (theamount of heterogeneity).
Results:1. The weighted effect size b0 is
0.579 (0.107) 2. The variance component m is 0.132
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
53
A mixed-effects meta-analysis with a covariate
Results:1. The intercept and the slope are -0.214 (0.171) and 0.139 (0.036).2. The residual variance component is 0.023.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
54
Advantages and extensions of the SEM-based meta-analysis
• Handing missing covariates with maximum likelihood estimation method;
• Constructing confidence intervals on parameter estimates and heterogeneity indices;
• Addressing heterogeneity with mixture models;• Testing mediation and moderation models for
multivariate effect sizes.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 55
Conclusion
• TSSEM and SEM-based meta-analysis are two new approaches for research findings;
• They integrate meta-analysis into the general SEM framework.
• New opportunities for methodological development and substantive applications...
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 56
References• Becker, B. J. (1992). Using results from replicated studies to estimate linear models. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 341-
362.
• Brown, S. P., & Stayman, D. M. (1992). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 34-51.
• Cheung, M.W.L. (2002). Meta-analysis for structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
• Cheung, M.W.L. (2008). A model for integrating fixed-, random-, and mixed-effects meta-analyses into structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 13, 182-202.
• Cheung, M.W.L. (May, 2009). Modeling multivariate effect sizes with structural equation models. Paper presented at the Association for Psychological Science 21st Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA.
• Cheung, M.W.L. (in press). Fixed-effects meta-analyses as multiple-group structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling.
• Cheung, M.W.L., & Chan, W. (2004). Testing dependent correlation coefficients via structural equation modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 206-223.
• Cheung, M.W. L., & Chan, W. (2005a). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40-64.
• Cheung, M.W.L., & Chan, W. (2005b). Classifying correlation matrices into relatively homogeneous subgroups: A cluster analytic approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 954-979.
• Cheung, M.W.L., Leung, K., & Au, K. (2006). Evaluating multilevel models in cross-cultural research: An Illustration with Social Axioms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 522-541.
• Cheung, S.F. (2000). Examining solutions to two practical issues in meta-analysis: Dependent correlations and missing data in correlation matrices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
• Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317-327.
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Copyright (c) Mike W.-L. Cheung 2009 57
References• Furlow, C.F. &, Beretvas, S.N. (2005). Meta-analytic methods of pooling correlation matrices for structural equation modeling
under different patterns of missing data. Psychological Methods, 10, 227-254.
• Hafdahl, A.R. (2001). Multivariate meta-analysis for exploratory factor analytic research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
• Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
• Hox, J.J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. (1989). International Social Survey Program: Work orientation. Ann Arbor, MI: Author.
• Leung, K., & Bond, M.H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multicultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119-197.
• Mehta, P.D., & Neale, M.C. (2005). People are variables too: Multilevel structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 10, 259-284.
• Muthén, B., Kaplan, D., & Hollis, M. (1987). On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 51, 431-462.
• Olkin, I., & Siotani, M. (1976). Asymptotic distribution of functions of a correlation matrix. In S. Ideka (Ed.), Essays in probability and statistics (pp. 235-251). Tokyo: Shinko Tsusho.
• Premack, S.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1988). Individual unionization decisions. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 223-234.
• Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D.S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865-885.