Which method is more powerful in testing the relationship of theoretical constructs? A meta comparison of structural equation modeling and path analysis with weighted composites.

Abstract

Structural equation modeling (SEM) has been deemed as a proper method when variables contain measurement errors. In contrast, path analysis with composite scores is preferred for prediction and diagnosis of individuals. While path analysis with composite scores has been criticized for yielding biased parameter estimates, recent literature pointed out that the population values of parameters in a latent-variable model depend on artificially assigned scales. Consequently, bias in parameter estimates is not a well-grounded concept for models involving latent constructs. This article compares path analysis with composite scores against SEM with respect to effect size and statistical power in testing the significance of the path coefficients, via the z- or t-statistics. The data come from many sources with various models that are substantively determined. Results show that SEM is not as powerful as path analysis even with equally weighted composites. However, path analysis with Bartlett-factor scores and the partial least-squares approach to SEM perform the best with respect to effect size and power.