Abstract:Structural Equation Models (SEMs) are routinely used in the analysis of empirical data by researchers from different scientific fields such as psychologists or economists. In some fields, such as in ecology, SEMs have only started recently to attract attention and thanks to dedicated software packages the use of SEMs has steadily increased. Yet, common analysis practices in such fields that might be transposed from other statistical techniques such as model acceptance or rejection based on p-value screening might be poorly fitted for SEMs especially when these models are used to confirm or reject hypotheses. In this simulation study, SEMs were fitted via two commonly used R packages: lavaan and piecewiseSEM. Five different data-generation scenarios were explored: (i) random, (ii) exact, (iii) shuffled, (iv) underspecified and (v) overspecified. In addition, sample size and model complexity were also varied to explore their impact on various global and local model fitness indices. The results showed that not one single model index should be used to decide on model fitness but rather a combination of different model fitness indices is needed. The global chi-square test for lavaan or the Fisher's C statistic for piecewiseSEM were, in isolation, poor indicators of model fitness. In addition, the simulations showed that to achieve sufficient power to detect individual effects, adequate sample sizes are required. Finally, BIC showed good capacity to select models closer to the truth especially for more complex models. I provide, based on these results, a flowchart indicating how information from different metrics may be combined to reveal model strength and weaknesses. Researchers in scientific fields with little experience in SEMs, such as in ecology, should consider and accept these limitations.

Specifying composites in structural equation modeling: A refinement of the Henseler–Ogasawara specification

How robust are Structural Equation Models to model miss-specification? A simulation study

Bridging Design and Behavioral Research With Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling

Structural Equation Modeling in the Context of Clinical Research

Robust Structural Equation Modeling with Missing Data and Auxiliary Variables

On the specification of structural equation models for ecological systems

How to Specify, Estimate, and Validate Higher-Order Constructs in PLS-SEM

Structural Equation Models as Computation Graphs

SEM with simplicity and accuracy

Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM

Estimating and investigating multiple constructs multiple indicators social relations models with and without roles within the traditional structural equation modeling framework: A tutorial.

Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students' evaluations of university teaching

Beyond ANOVA: An Introduction to Structural Equation Models for Experimental Designs

Bayesian Meta-Analytic SEM: A One-Stage Approach to Modeling Between-Studies Heterogeneity in Structural Parameters

Latent variable selection in structural equation models

Estimating nonlinear effects of random slopes: A comparison of multilevel structural equation modeling with a two-step, a single-indicator, and a plausible values approach

Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods

A two-stage estimation procedure for non-linear structural equation models

A New Definite Linear Algorithm for the Structural Equation Model with Application in Fire Risk Evaluation

Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right—Camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models.

Comparing the Robustness of the Structural after Measurement (SAM) Approach to Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) against Local Model Misspecifications with Alternative Estimation Approaches