TY - JOUR
T1 - Prior sensitivity analysis in default bayesian structural equation modeling
AU - van Erp, Sara
AU - Mulder, Joris
AU - Oberski, Daniel L.
N1 - Funding Information:
This article was published Online First November 27, 2017. Sara van Erp and Joris Mulder, Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University; Daniel L. Oberski, Department of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University. This research was supported by a Research Talent Grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. This work was presented at the Modern Modeling Methods conference in 2016 and the Interuniver- sity Graduate School of Psychometrics and Sociometrics summer conference in 2016. A preprint of this article has been made available on the Open Science Framework.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Psychological Association.
PY - 2018/6
Y1 - 2018/6
N2 - Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM) has recently gained popularity because it enables researchers to fit complex models and solve some of the issues often encountered in classical maximum likelihood 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, bias, coverage rates, and quantiles of the estimates. In this article, 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 available in the online supplemental materials.
AB - Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM) has recently gained popularity because it enables researchers to fit complex models and solve some of the issues often encountered in classical maximum likelihood 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, bias, coverage rates, and quantiles of the estimates. In this article, 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 available in the online supplemental materials.
KW - Bayesian
KW - Default priors
KW - Sensitivity analysis
KW - Structural equation models
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85035040110&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/met0000162
DO - 10.1037/met0000162
M3 - Article
C2 - 29172613
AN - SCOPUS:85035040110
SN - 1082-989X
VL - 23
SP - 363
EP - 388
JO - Psychological Methods
JF - Psychological Methods
IS - 2
ER -