Psychological Methods © 2011 American Psychological Association

2011, Vol. 16, No. 1, 34 – 43 1082-989X/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021763

Estimating, Testing, and Comparing Specific Effects in Structural Equation

Models: The Phantom Model Approach
Siegfried Macho Thomas Ledermann
University of Fribourg University of Connecticut

The phantom model approach for estimating, testing, and comparing specific effects within structural
equation models (SEMs) is presented. The rationale underlying this novel method consists in representing
the specific effect to be assessed as a total effect within a separate latent variable model, the phantom
model that is added to the main model. The following favorable features characterize the method: (a) It
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

enables the estimation, testing, and comparison of arbitrary specific effects for recursive and nonrecursive
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

models with latent and manifest variables; (b) it enables the bootstrapping of confidence intervals; and
(c) it can be applied with all standard SEM programs permitting latent variables, the specification of
equality constraints, and the bootstrapping of total effects. These features along with the fact that no
manipulation of matrices and formulas is required make the approach particularly suitable for applied
researchers. The method is illustrated by means of 3 examples with real data sets.

Keywords: phantom models, specific effects, bootstrapping, SEM

In many practical applications, researchers using structural
equation modeling (SEM) face the problem of assessing specific
effects that cannot be classified as direct, indirect, or total effects,
as estimated by most SEM programs. In structural models, the
direct effect of variable X on Y is the effect that is not mediated by
any other variable in the model. The indirect effect from X to Y is
the sum of all mediated effects between the source variable X and
the final outcome variable Y. The total effect is the sum of the
direct and indirect effect. For example, a scientist might be inter-
ested in the specific effect of a source variable X on a final outcome
variable Y that is mediated by a subclass of the mediators (inter-
vening variables) involved in the effect of X on Y only. The
evaluation of such specific effects calls for special techniques that,
unfortunately, are not implemented in all SEM programs and
require some expertise in matrix algebra to execute.
Moreover, not only the estimation and testing of single specific
effects but also a comparison of different specific effects (or of
direct, indirect, and total effects) might be of substantial interest.
For example, a researcher might want to compare the effect of a
source on a final outcome variable that is mediated by two groups
of intervening variables. Again, most commonly used SEM pro-
grams provide no direct solution to this problem.
This article was published Online First February 7, 2011.
Siegfried Macho, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg,
Fribourg, Switzerland; Thomas Ledermann, Department of Psychology,
University of Connecticut.
We would like to thank Michael Munz for his comments on an earlier
draft of the article. Additional material comprising raw data, AMOS
graphics files with models, and R source files implementing OpenMx
programs of the examples is available online (http://www.unifr.ch/psycho/
site/units/allpsy/team/Macho/research/sem).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Siegfried
Macho, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Rue Faucigny
2, CH 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. E-mail: siegfried.macho@unifr.ch
34
The SEM literature provides two main approaches for address-
ing the estimation, testing, and comparison of specific effects. The
first one employs matrix methods (Bollen, 1987, 1989). Specific
effects are estimated by means of (differences of) matrix products,
and the associated standard errors of estimates are computed by
means of the delta method in matrix format (Sobel, 1986). The
matrix method might not be well suited for all applications and
users, for the following reasons: First, the use of complex matrix
formulas (involving vector operators and Kronecker products)
might have a deterrent effect on users interested primarily in
applied research. Second, with complex specific effects, involving
many paths, the computation of standard errors of the specific
effect becomes quite complex and error prone. Finally, in general
the method does not permit the user to bootstrap confidence
intervals. At present, the bootstrapping of confidence intervals of
arbitrary specific effects and comparison of effects via Bollen’s
(1987, 1989) method is only possible with the programs Mplus,
Mx, and OpenMx. However, bootstrapped confidence intervals are
usually superior to those computed by means of the delta method,
especially with small sample sizes (e.g., Bollen & Stine, 1990;
MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004).
A second approach to the estimation and comparison of specific
effects was proposed by Cheung (2007). According to this method,
a latent variable, a so-called phantom variable (Rindskopf, 1984),
is added to the model as an extra variable with a direct effect from
this latent variable to one of the main variables in the model. The
variance of this latent variable is fixed to zero, and the structural
coefficient assigned to the path from the phantom variable to the
main variable is restricted by means of a formula representing the
specific effect or a contrast between two or more effects. This
strategy forces the program to provide estimates and standard
errors for the structural coefficient represented by the formula. The
insertion of the additional variable with fixed variance and the
direct effect constrained as a function of the other model param-
eters does not influence the estimation of parameters for the main
 THE PHANTOM MODEL APPROACH
model. In addition, the method permits the bootstrapping of con-
fidence intervals of the coefficient representing the specific effect.
The approach of Cheung requires a SEM program, like LISREL,
Mplus, or Mx, that enables the specification of nonlinear con-
straints on parameters. However, most SEM results reported in
articles were obtained by means of SEM programs that do not
permit the specification of such nonlinear constraints (cf. Jackson,
Gillaspy, & Purc-Stephenson, 2009, p. 14). In addition, with
complex effects and contrasts, the method reaches its limits, as the
elaboration of the relevant algebraic expressions for testing or
comparing specific effects becomes difficult and error prone (cf.
the discussion below).
In sum, these two methods may not be appropriate in every
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
application and for all researchers who would like to estimate, test,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and compare specific effects. By contrast, the phantom model
approach is well suited with complex models and for users em-
ploying SEM software with a graphical interface enabling the
representation of a model by means of a causal diagram. Conse-
quently, it may serve as a viable complement to existing methods.
The utility of the phantom model approach derives from the
following favorable characteristics: First, the method does not
require the elaboration of complex formulas that may be not only
daunting for many users but also error prone. Second, the method
is not limited to SEM programs allowing for the specification of
arbitrary functional restrictions on parameters. Third, the method
enables the bootstrapping of confidence intervals for specific ef-
fects. Finally, the approach is enormously flexible by allowing the
estimation, testing, and comparison of arbitrary specific effects in
recursive and nonrecursive models with manifest and latent vari-
ables.
The present article is structured as follows: First is an abstract
specification of phantom models as well as the application of the
method to the estimation and comparison of specific effects. Sec-
ond is an illustration of the application of phantom models to
estimating, testing, and comparing specific effects, using examples
from the literature. Finally, in the Discussion section, the phantom
model approach is compared with the existing approaches.
Phantom Models for Estimating Specific Effects
In the following section, we first present a characterization of
phantom models. This is followed by an explication of how to use
phantom models for assessing specific effects and contrasts be-
tween effects.
Phantom Models
Phantom models are characterized by the following features:
First, phantom models are made up entirely of latent variables.
Second, their parameters are completely constrained; that is, they
are fixed either to specific values or to functions of the other
parameters. By consequence, the addition of one or more phantom
models to the main model does not influence the estimation or
testing of the latter. In the present case, the parameters are either
fixed or equated to one of the parameters of the main model.
Due to the fact that all available SEM packages enable the
specification of these two types of restriction, the method is
generally applicable.
35
Third, phantom models are of functional significance only; that
is, they have no substantive meaning, as they are employed to
attain a specific objective with respect to estimating and testing
aspects of the main model only. In our applications, phantom
models are constructed in order to force the SEM program to
provide estimates and tests of specific effects and of their contrasts.
However, we do not exclude the possibility that phantom models
may be used for other purposes, too.
For the present applications, phantom models are entirely dis-
connected from the main model. This feature is not regarded as
mandatory, however. There might be applications of phantom
models that require a connection between the phantom and the
main model.
The characterization of phantom models can be summarized as
follows: Phantom models consist entirely of latent variables, and
all parameters are constrained. They are added to the main model
to serve specific purposes. In our applications, phantom models are
employed to obtain estimates and tests of specific effects and
comparisons of effects. The name phantom model was inspired by
Rindskopf’s (1984) phantom variables that are also of functional
significance only (in this case, to specify complex constraints on
parameters). After this characterization of phantom models, we
next present the phantom model approach for estimating and
comparing specific effects.
The Phantom Model Approach
In the following section, the construction of phantom models for
estimating specific effects or contrasts is explicated. A specific
effect is regarded as an effect of a source variable X on an outcome
variable Y that does not conform to the standard classification of
direct, indirect, and total effects. Typically, a specific effect makes
up a portion of the indirect effect between X and Y that encom-
passes a subset of the paths and/or variables constituting the
indirect effect. Specific effects are of focal interest in mediation
research (e.g., Ledermann & Macho, 2009; MacKinnon, 2000).
For example, assume that the effect from X on Y is transmitted by
two parallel mediating paths. In this case, it is usually of interest
which of the two mediated effects is significant.
Concerning the comparison of effects, the phantom model ap-
proach may be used for contrasting two specific effects. Consider
once again a model with two parallel mediating paths transmitting
the effect of X on Y. A comparison of the specific effects can foster
a better understanding of the significance of the intervening vari-
ables (e.g., Ledermann & Macho, 2009). The comparison of ef-
fects is not restricted to specific effects, however. For instance,
below, in Example 2, we apply the method for comparing the
indirect with the direct effect.
The phantom model approach for estimating specific effects and
contrast is based on the following idea: If the specific effect or
contrast of interest is represented as a total effect within a phantom
model, then SEM programs enabling the estimation of total effects
provide point estimates of the specific effect or the contrast be-
tween effects. In addition, confidence intervals may be obtained by
means of bootstrapping.
Modeling specific effects by means of phantom models differs
from the way they are represented in the other two approaches: In
Cheung’s (1987) and Bollen’s (1987, 1989) approach specific
 36 MACHO AND LEDERMANN
effects are represented algebraically, by means of formulas (poly-
nomial equations) and matrix formulas, respectively.
Like the other methods, the phantom model approach assures
the correct estimation of specific effects or contrasts as long as the
specific effect or contrast is modeled accurately as a total effect
within the phantom model, provided that total effect can be esti-
mated properly for the given model. Thus, concerning the correct
estimation of the specific effect or contrast, it does not matter
whether the effect is represented by means of an algebraic expres-
sion or by a phantom model.
Guidance to Build Phantom Models Representing
Specific Effects and Contrasts
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The construction of a phantom model that represents the specific
effect of interest consists in the following steps:
1. Identify the variables and direct effects in the main
model making up the specific effect to be tested.
2. Add a new latent variable for each variable identified in
the first step, and add direct effects between these new
latent variables so that the structure of the resulting latent
variable model is an exact replicate of that portion of the
main model that makes up the specific effect of interest
(no residual terms are required).
3. Specify equality constraints on path coefficients of the
newly constructed latent variable model: Each path co-
efficient is restricted to the value of the respective coef-
ficient in the main model.
4. Specify a restriction on the variance of the exogenous
variable within the phantom model (e.g., set the variance
parameter to 1). Instead of fixing the variance parameter,
it is also possible to specify equality constraints between
the variance of the exogenous phantom variable and its
counterparts in the main model (cf. Example 1, below).
The latent model resulting from Step 2 to Step 4 is a phantom
model representing the specific effect of interest as a total effect.
In order to contrast two specific effects, the variables and direct
effects for each of the two effects to be compared have to be
duplicated as separate structures. That is, for each of the contrasted
effects, a separate phantom model representing the respective
effect is constructed. In addition, the last step of the previous
specification has to be replaced by the following steps:
5. Insert two additional latent variables into the phantom
model, an exogenous variable s_ and a target variable t_,
and fix the variance parameter of s_ to 1 or any other
admissible value. (Throughout this article we adopt the
notational convention of adding an underline character to
names of variables making up the phantom model.)
6. Insert direct effects from s_ to the exogenous vari-
ables of the two phantom models representing the
single effects to be compared and fix the path coeffi-
cients to 1.
7. Insert direct effects from the final outcome variables of
the two phantom models to variable t_ and fix the path
coefficient of one effect to 1 and that of the other to ⫺1.
This guidance for building a phantom model representing a
specific effect or the contrast between two effects as a total effect
can be generalized in a straightforward way for testing simultane-
ously multiple specific effects or for comparing more than two
effects (cf. the example presented in the Discussion section).
The given instruction lists the single steps in an abstract manner
only. Concerning the concrete implementation of a phantom
model, it is important to note that the phantom model approach
requires the reconstruction of a portion of the main model as a new
latent variable model. By consequence, with most SEM programs,
the construction of the phantom model consists essentially in the
reproduction and adjustment of an already existing model struc-
ture. To be more specific, by means of a graphical interface, like
AMOS graphics, the construction of the latent model consists
basically in copying existing portions of the main model and then
changing the variable names as well as specifying all variables as
latent. Similarly, by means of program syntax, for many programs,
like AMOS BASIC, EQS, RAMONA, and SAS PROC CALIS, the
model is specified by means of a set of equations. In this case, the
equations defining the relevant portion of the main model may
be copied and the names of variables modified. Furthermore,
with programs like AMOS BASIC, SAS PROC CALIS, and
RAMONA, where equality constraints are specified by means of
identical names, the copying of relevant equations implies that the
required equality constraints are set correctly.
With programs, like LISREL and Mplus, enabling the represen-
tation of specific effects by means of nonlinear constraints on
parameters, the representation of a specific effect by a polynomial
equation may be more favorable than the construction of a phan-
tom model for representing the specific effect, at least in those
cases where the specific effect or contrast is not too complex (cf.
our discussion of this issue in the Discussion section).
The application of the phantom model approach is subject to
two limitations. First, the method cannot generally be applied for
testing and comparing standardized effects. Second, with missing
data most SEM programs do not permit the bootstrapping of
confidence intervals. In this case, confidence intervals for specific
effects or contrasts may be obtained by means of parametric
bootstrapping. More specifically, the following two-stage proce-
dure may be applied: In the first step, a consistent estimate of the
covariance matrix has to be computed. This may be achieved by
fitting the saturated model (or another model representing the
relations in the population adequately) to the observed data using
the full information likelihood information available for most SEM
packages (cf. Arbuckle, 1996). Alternatively, specialized pro-
grams, like NORM (Schafer, 1999) and SPSS Missing Values
(SPSS, 2007), may be used for estimating the covariance matrix. In
the second step, confidence intervals are estimated by means of
parametric bootstrapping via the covariance matrix estimated in
the first step.
Having specified the construction of phantom models to repre-
sent a specific effect or a contrast between effects as total effects,
we now illustrate the application of the method using data and
models from applied research.
 THE PHANTOM MODEL APPROACH 37

Illustrative Examples items, whereas the self-evaluation of participants comprised a

In the following section, we illustrate the method by means of
three examples using real data sets. The first case demonstrates the
testing of a specific effect within a recursive model. In the second
example the direct effect of the exogenous variable on the outcome
variable is compared with the indirect effect by means of the same
recursive model as in Example 1. The final example illustrates the
comparison of two indirect effects within a nonrecursive model.
The data of Examples 1 and 2 result from Study 1 of Tsai, Chen,
and Liu (2007, Table 2). The data of the third example are from a
study of Kurdek (1998, Table 4).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
single measure only. Answers to questions were provided on a
4-point rating scale. The data were collected at different points of
time: The variables CHS, TP, SRGA, and SR were measured 2
weeks after the variables PM, HOC, and SE.
Our model differs from that of Tsai et al. (2007) in three
respects. First, no control variables were included in our model.
Tsai et al. incorporated two control variables into their model in
addition to the main variables shown in Figure 1 (the inclusion of
these variables resulted in a worse fit). Second, no correction of
attenuation was performed. Except for the self-rating of task per-
formance, the variables represented by the rectangles of Figure 1
represent composite measures. Tsai et al. used Cronbach’s alpha to

Example 1: Testing a Specific Effect correct for measurement errors. However, due to the high reliabili-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Tsai et al. (2007) investigated variables mediating the effect of
positive moods on task performance of insurance sale agents. The
model in Figure 1 is a modified version of their Model 3 (cf. Tsai
et al., 2007, Figure 2). The variable positive moods (PM) repre-
sents a composite of answers to 14 items measuring the retrospec-
tive evaluation of positive moods. The variable helping other
coworkers (HOC) is a composite of four items measuring partic-
ipants’ helping behavior with respect to coworkers. The variable
coworker helping/support (CHS) represents four items measuring
the estimation of participants’ support by their coworkers. Self-
efficacy (SE) comprises 10 items measuring participants’ estimates
of their efficacy on the job. The variable task persistence (TP) is a
composite of two items measuring participants’ ability to over-
come obstacles. Participants’ task performance (TPF) was evalu-
ated by participants themselves (self-rated goal attainment
[SRGA]) and by their supervisors (supervisor rating [SR]). The
evaluation of the supervisors was measured by means of eight
ties (␣ ⬎ .80 for each of the measures), the effect of the correction
is not substantial (this is evidenced by the fact that our path
coefficients are nearly identical to theirs). Third, two direct effects
(PM 3 TPF and SE 3 HOC) as well as one covariance arc
between ␨TP and εSRGA were added to the model. The modification
of the original model was inspired by the fact that the former
provided no acceptable fit to the data: ␹2(9) ⫽ 62.55, root-mean-
square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ .14. In addition, the
modification resulted in a substantial improvement: ⌬␹2(3) ⫽
50.80. Note also that the added effects are not implausible (e.g., a
higher estimated self-efficacy might lead participants to spend
more time in helping other coworkers).
The model of Figure 1 provides an acceptable fit: ␹2(6, N ⫽
306) ⫽ 11.75, p ⫽ .068, RMSEA ⫽ .056, 90% CI [.000, .103].
When degrees of freedom are low, as in this case, a sample size of
306 will not yield high precision in the RMSEA estimate. As a
consequence, the 90% confidence interval spans a wide range of
RMSEA values, from perfect to unacceptable.

HOC CHS SR

1 1 1

Helping Other CHS . HOC Coworker Supervisor

Coworkers Helping / Support Rating
(HOC) (CHS) (SR)
HOC. PM
2
TPF.CHS 1
PM
CHS. PM
TP.CHS

Positive Moods Task

TPF. PM
(PM) Performance
TP. PM
HOC. SE (TPF)
SE. PM
1

TPF . SE SRGA.TPF
TPF .TP
TPF

Self-Rated Goal
Self-Efficacy Task Persistence
Attainment
(SE) (TP)
TP. SE (SRGA)

1 1 1

SE TP SRGA

Figure 1. A model explaining the effect of positive moods on task performance. Adapted from “Test of a
Model Linking Employee Positive Moods and Task Performance,” by W.-C. Tsai, C.-C. Chen, and H.-L. Liu,
2007, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, p. 1577. Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association.
 38 MACHO AND LEDERMANN
For substantive reasons, a researcher might be interested in the
effect of PM on TPF that is mediated by the variable SE. Thus, the
specific effect of interest consists in that component of the indirect
effect of PM on TPF that is transmitted by the variable SE. It can
be conceived of as the product of the direct effect of PM on SE and
the total effect of SE on TPF. Stated differently, the specific effect
of interest is the total effect of PM on TPF minus the effect of PM
on TPF that is not transmitted by the variable SE.
A model representing the focal specific effect as a total effect
results from the main model in Figure 1 by eliminating all direct
effects of PM on the other variables except for the direct effect of
PM on SE. The phantom model in Figure 2 represents this specific
effect as total effect. It differs from the main model in two
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
respects: The variables are all latent, and the direct effects of PM
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
on the variables other than on SE have been omitted. All other
direct effects as well as all variables of the main model are
replicated within the phantom model, as they are part of the
specific effect. Thus, the phantom model comprises exactly those
phantom variables and direct effects that are required for repre-
senting the focal specific effect within the main model as total
effect. The phantom model in Figure 2 does not contain variables
representing residual terms because they are not required for
estimating the total effect of PM_ on TPF_ within the phantom
model (phantom variables corresponding to the variables in the
main model are symbolized by the name of the variable plus an
underline).
The symbols denoting path coefficients within the phantom
model are identical to the corresponding coefficients within the
main model, thus indicating the equality of coefficients. Similarly,
the same symbol ␾PM2 was used to denote the variance of the
exogenous variables, thus indicating that both variances were
restricted to be equal. With the phantom model of Figure 2 having
been added to the main model of Figure 1, the SEM program
provides the specific effect as a total (or indirect) effect in the
output. (Unfortunately, AMOS [graphics] does not provide an
output of the total [or indirect] effect of PM_ on TPF_ for the
model shown in Figure 2. This is probably due to the fact that the
program interprets variable PM_ as an error term associated with
variable SE_. To prevent this misinterpretation of the variable
PM_, and to force the program to provide the required output of
the total effect, one can insert a further latent variable, say,
dummy_, with an arrow: PM_ 3 dummy_. The associated coeffi-
cient may be fixed to an arbitrary value, say, 1. Clearly, the
Helping Other
Coworkers
(HOC_)
2 TPF .CHS
PM
Positive
Moods HOC. SE
(PM_)
SE. PM
Self-
Efficacy
(SE_)
Figure 2. A phantom model representing the specific effect of positive moods on task performance that is
mediated by the variable self-efficacy.
inclusion of this additional variable does not influence the estima-
tion and testing of the specific effect of interest [cf. the AMOS
graphics file on our website at http://www.unifr.ch/psycho/site/
units/allpsy/team/Macho/research/sem].)
Table 1 contains the estimated effects as well as bootstrapped
standard errors and 95% confidence intervals for the each of the
three examples. The bootstrapping results (for each of the three
examples) are based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. Due to the fact
that only the covariance matrices were available, we performed
parametric bootstrapping: Instead of drawing bootstrap samples
from the actual sample, we drew bootstrap samples from a multi-
variate normal distribution using the sample covariance matrix.
The results of two methods for computing bootstrapped confidence
intervals, the percentile method and the bias-corrected percentile
method, are presented (for a basic introduction to these methods,
see Mooney & Duval, 1993; Stine, 1989). The results indicate a
significant specific effect, as zero is not included in the confidence
interval. The bootstrapped confidence intervals are practically
identical for both methods of computing confidence intervals.
Example 2: Comparing Two Effects
The second example concerns the contrast of two effects. Using
again the model shown in Figure 1, we compared the indirect
effect of positive moods on task performance with the respective
direct effect. Figure 3 depicts two possible phantom models that
enable the estimation of the difference between these two effects.
The phantom model in Figure 3A is constructed according to the
instruction given above. It comprises two partial models. The
upper submodel, consisting of the variables PMi_, SE_, HOC_,
CHS_, TP_, and TPFi_, represents the indirect effect of PM on
TPF. The lower partial model, comprising variables PMd_ and
TPFd_, represents the direct effect of PM on TPF. The two partial
models are connected to a source variable s0_ and a target variable t0_.
By fixing the coefficient of the direct effect TPFi_ 3 t0_ to 1 and
that of TPFd_ 3 t0_ to ⫺1, the indirect effect represented by the
upper partial model is multiplied by 1, whereas the direct effect
represented by the lower partial model is multiplied by ⫺1. As a
result, the total (or indirect) effect of s0_ on t0_ represents the
difference between the indirect and the direct effect of PM on TPF.
The model in Figure 3B depicts a phantom model that achieves
the same result as the model of Figure 3A. This model is a perfect
copy of the main model, with one exception: The direct effect from
CHS . HOC Coworker
Helping /Support
(CHS_)
Task
TP.CHS Performance
(TPF_)
TPF . SE TPF .TP
Task
Persistence
TP.SE (TP_)
 THE PHANTOM MODEL APPROACH 39

Table 1
Estimated Specific Effects or Contrast and Bootstrapped Standard Errors and 95% Confidence Intervals for Example 1–3
95% CI
Percentile method Bias corrected
Effect Contrast being tested Valuea SE LL UL LL UL
1 Specific effect (phantom model of Figure 2) 0.081 0.026 0.034 0.134 0.036 0.139
2 Contrast between direct and indirect effect (phantom model of Figure 3) ⫺0.173 0.090 ⫺0.348 0.006 ⫺0.338 0.016
3 Contrast between two specific effects (phantom model of Figure 5) 0.123 0.158 ⫺0.195 0.425 ⫺0.198 0.425
Note. CI ⫽ confidence interval; LL ⫽ lower limit; UL ⫽ upper limit.
a
Point estimate of the specific effect or the difference of two effects being compared.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PM_ to TPF_ is split into two parts with the phantom variable p0_ 1 indicate that this hypothesis cannot be rejected because the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

in between. The path coefficient of the direct effect PM_ 3 p0_
was set equal to the coefficient of the direct effect of PM on TPF
within the main model (as indicated by the identical symbols),
whereas the coefficient of the direct effect p0_ 3 TPF_ was fixed
to the value ⫺1. As for the model in Figure 3A, the current
phantom model represents the difference between the indirect and
the direct effect of PM on TPF as a total (or indirect) effect of PM_
on TPF_. The construction of the phantom model in Figure 3A is
a bit more demanding than that of Figure 3B. However, the
principle for constructing the former (but not the latter) is gener-
ally applicable, as illustrated by the subsequent example.
With one of these phantom models having been constructed,
standard errors of the difference as well as confidence intervals
may be bootstrapped, thus enabling a test of the hypothesis that the
indirect effect is identical to the direct effect. The results in Table
CHS. HOC
HOC_ CHS_
TPF .CHS
HOC. PM
CHS . PM
confidence intervals of both methods include zero.
Example 3: Comparing Effects of a
Nonrecursive Model
The final example is intended to demonstrate that the phantom
model approach works equally well with nonrecursive models. A
common nonrecursive model is Kenny’s (1996) mutual influence
model, which was designed to examine reciprocal influences in
dyadic data (see also Woody & Sadler, 2005).
The model depicted in Figure 4 was used by Kurdek (1998) to
test the mutual influence of marital quality and symptoms of
depression in married couples. Specifically, according to the re-
ciprocal change hypothesis of Kurdek, the deterioration of marital
quality is accompanied by an increase of depressive symptoms. On
the other hand, depressive symptoms are conceived as risk factors
for marital distress. Kurdek employed the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale to measure marital quality (MQ). The reliability of the index
score (32 items), quantified by means of Cronbach’s alpha, was

PMi_ HOC. SE
TP.CHS
TPFi_ quite high: ␣ ⱖ .89. The variable depressive symptoms (DS)
TP. PM
TPF . SE represents the sum of 20 items from the Symptom Checklist-90 –
1 SE. PM
TPF .TP
1 Revised. Again, the reliability was high: ␣ ⱖ .86. As with the
1 SE_ TP_
s0_ TP. SE t0_
previous examples, no correction for attenuation was performed.
Again, this may be justified by the high reliabilities, as measured
1 by Cronbach’s alpha. The model in Figure 4 provides a good fit to
1
the data: ␹2(12, N ⫽ 136) ⫽ 16.46, p ⫽ .171, RMSEA ⫽ .052,
TPF . PM
PMd_ TPFd_ 90% CI [.000, .109]. The low number of degrees of freedom and
A the small sample size result in the wide 90% confidence interval of
the RMSEA.
CHS . HOC One of the issues of Kurdek (1998) concerned the question
HOC_ CHS_
CHS . PM whether the decline in marital quality is similar for husbands and
TPF .CHS
HOC. PM wives. In a similar spirit, it might be interesting to note whether the
1 TP.CHS

PM_ TPF . PM
p0_
1
TPF_
variables measured during the 1st year of the relationship exert the
TP. PM TPF . SE
same influence on the marital quality in the 4th year, for both
SE. PM
HOC. SE TPF .TP partners. The phantom model in Figure 5 enables one to address
SE_ TP_
this issue by providing a comparison of the joint influence of
TP. SE 1st-year variables on the marital quality in the 4th year for hus-
bands and wives.
B
The phantom model is made up of two submodels. The upper
Figure 3. Two phantom models representing the comparison of the
one comprising the variables H1MQ_, H1DS_, H4MQ_, and
indirect effect of positive moods on task performance with the direct effect. H4DS_ represents the husbands, and the lower submodel com-
HOC ⫽ helping other workers; CHS ⫽ coworker helping/supporting; prises the corresponding variables for the wives: W1MQ_, W1DS_,
PM ⫽ positive moods; TPF ⫽ task performance; SE ⫽ self-efficacy; TP ⫽ W4MQ_, and W4DS_. The exogenous phantom variable s0_ whose
task persistence. variance was fixed to 1, is linked to each of the 1st-year variables
 40 MACHO AND LEDERMANN

Husband’s γH .
MQ H MQ Husband’s
1
Marital Quality Marital Quality ζH MQ
Year 1 (H1MQ) Year 4 (H4MQ)

βH .
DS H MQ βH .
MQ H DS

Husband’s γH .
DS H DS Husband’s
Depressive Symptoms Depressive Symptoms
1 ζH DS
Year 1 (H1DS) Year 4 (H4DS)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Wife’s γW .
MQ W MQ Wife’s 1
Marital Quality Marital Quality ζW MQ
Year 1 (W1MQ) Year 4 (W4MQ)

βW .
DS W MQ βW .
MQ W DS

Wife’s γW .
DS W DS Wife’s
Depressive Symptoms 1 ζW
Depressive Symptoms DS
Year 1 (W1DS) Year 4 (W4DS)

Figure 4. A model representing the influence of marital quality and depression at two time points. Adapted
from “The Nature and Predictors of the Trajectory of Change in Marital Quality Over the First 4 Years of
Marriage for First-Married Husbands and Wives,” by L. A. Kurdek, 1998, Journal of Family Psychology, 12,
p. 506. Copyright 1998 by the American Psychological Association.

with path coefficients equal to 1 for each of the direct effects. The
phantom variable H4MQ_, representing the marital quality of
husbands in the 4th year of marriage, is linked to the target variable
t0_ with coefficient 1, whereas the corresponding variable W4MQ_
for the wives is linked to t0_ with coefficient ⫺1. As a result, the
total effect from s0_ to t0_ represents the difference between
husbands and wives of the joint effect of the 1st-year variables on
marital quality in the 4th year.
As for the previous examples, we performed parametric boot-
strapping, using 5,000 samples, for estimating standard errors and
confidence intervals. The results did not show significant differ-
ences between husband and wives, which is in general agreement
with the other results of Kurdek (1998).
The examples presented demonstrate the application of the
phantom variable approach for estimating, testing, and comparing
specific effects. The bootstrapping of confidence intervals renders
the method extremely convenient for testing specific hypotheses in
complex models. The application of this method to the testing of
arbitrary effects or contrasts is straightforward.
Discussion
In the introduction, we presented the methods of Cheung (2007)
and Bollen (1987, 1989), and we claimed that the phantom model
approach may be regarded as a valuable complement to these
methods. In the following section, we first demonstrate that the
methods of Cheung and Bollen can be simulated by means of
phantom models, thus highlighting that the latter approach is as
powerful as the other methods. This is followed by a discussion of
the conditions that render the phantom model approach more or
less favorable compared with the other methods.
The method of Cheung (2007) may be implemented by using a
phantom model that consists of two latent variables s0_ and t0_
with a direct effect from s0_ on t0_. The variance of s0_ has to be
fixed to an arbitrary value (say, 1.0), and the path coefficient is
determined by the formula representing the specific effect or the
comparison to be assessed.
Concerning the method of Bollen (1987, 1989), it can also be
demonstrated that the matrix manipulations for computing specific
effects, as proposed by Bollen, may be simulated by means of
phantom models. By consequence, all specific effects that can be
handled with Bollen’s method can be managed by means of
phantom models, too. The following illustration uses one of Bol-
len’s examples. Figure 6 depicts the path model employed by
Bollen (1987, Figure 3; 1989, Figure 8.16). He considers those
fractions of the indirect effects of the exogenous variables X1, X2,
and X3 on the endogenous variables Y2 and Y3 that are mediated
by Y1.
The approach comprises three steps. First, indirect effects of
exogenous on endogenous variables are estimated for the complete
model. Second, indirect effects are estimated by means of a model
with all coefficients representing the direct effects on Y1 as well as
 THE PHANTOM MODEL APPROACH
.
H 4 MQ H 1 MQ
H 1MQ _ H 4 MQ _
1
.
H 4DS H 4MQ
1 .
H 4MQ H 4DS
t0_
.
H 4DS H 1DS
1 1 H 1DS _ H 4 DS _
s0_ 1 husbands’ and wives’ joint effect of the two 1st-year variables on
1 .
W 4 MQ W 1 MQ
W 1MQ _ W 4 MQ _
1 required comparison, however. (The matrix method can be ex-
.
W 4DS W 4MQ
.
W 4MQ W 4DS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.
W 4DS W 1DS
W 1DS _ W 4 DS _
Figure 5. A phantom model with the total effect of variables s0_ on t0_
representing the comparison between husbands and wives of the joint
effect of the two 1st-year variables on marital quality in the 4th year.
H1MQ, H4MQ ⫽ husband’s marital quality Years 1 and 4; H1DS,
H4DS ⫽ husband’s depressive symptoms Years 1 and 4; W1MQ, W4MQ ⫽
wife’s marital quality Years 1 and 4; W1MQ, W4MQ ⫽ wife’s depressive
symptoms Years 1 and 4.
the direct effects from Y1 on other (endogenous) variables set to
zero. Third, the indirect effects of these two models are subtracted.
The resulting difference corresponds to the specific effect in ques-
tion.
The phantom model in Figure 7A emulates these operations.
The upper partial model, with variable names containing the su-
perscript 1, represents the complete model. The lower submodel,
with variable names involving the superscript 2, represents the
model with the coefficients of direct effects to and from variable
Y1_[2] (representing Y1) set to zero. In Figure 7A the respective
direct effects are represented by dashed arrows. The subtraction of
effects is performed by connecting the endogenous variables cor-
responding to Y2 and Y3 within the two submodels to the target
variables t1_ and t2_, with coefficients 1 and ⫺1 assigned to the
respective arrows. In addition, the exogenous variables denoting
X1, X2, and X3 in the two partial models are connected to the source
variables s1_, s2_, and s3_, with coefficient 1 on all arrows. The
total effects of s1_, s2_, and s3_ on t1_ and t2_ represent those
portions of the indirect effects of X1, X2, and X3 on Y2 and Y3 that
are mediated by variable Y1.
The phantom model in Figure 7A can be simplified: Variables
s1_, s2_, and s3_, as well as X1_[2], X2_[2], X3_[2], and Y1_[2] with
associated arrows, may be deleted, and the arrows that emanate
from X1_[2], X2_[2], and X3_[2] may be replaced by respective
arrows originating in X1_[1], X2_[1], and X3_[1].
The more complex model of Figure 7A was used to demonstrate
in detail how Bollen’s (1987, 1989) procedure for estimating
specific effects can be implemented by means of phantom models.
A much simpler and intuitively more appealing solution that leads
to the same outcome is presented in Figure 7b. This phantom
model results from the full model by deleting all paths from
exogenous to endogenous variables that do not include variable Y1.
This model is intuitively more appealing because it represents the
41
specific effect in a direct way and not, like the model in Figure 7A,
by means of subtracting effects of two models.
The preceding exposition demonstrated that phantom models
are as powerful as existing approaches. However, the phantom
model approach enables the testing and comparison of specific
effects that exceed the potential of existing matrix methods. Con-
sider once again our third illustrative example that compared
marital quality in the 4th year. The method of Bollen cannot be
used directly to handle this comparison of joint effects. The phan-
tom model in Figure 5 enables the estimation and testing of the
tended by augmenting the structural matrices with phantom effects
[i.e., direct effects between phantom variables and the variables in
the main model]. This amounts to the use of an elementary type of
phantom model.)
The previous discussion revealed various qualities of the phan-
tom model approach for testing and comparing specific effects.
However, as mentioned above, under certain conditions, the other
methods may be more convenient than the phantom model ap-
proach. We now discuss the conditions favoring the phantom
model approach. First, the phantom model approach may be re-
garded as the method of choice for those users employing the
programs AMOS and EQS, which do not allow for the represen-
tation of specific effects by means of algebraic expressions (ac-
cording to Jackson et al., 2009, these users make up about 50% of
the SEM users).
Second, the method is useful in general with complex models
like those of Examples 2 and 3. In both cases it may be possible to
work out the formulas representing the comparison of the effects
and to apply Cheung’s (2007) method instead of building a phan-
tom model. However, the phantom model approach will still be of
great value for those users with little expertise or motivation to
work out complex formulas, as the phantom model approach
requires only the basic capability of implementing latent variable
models and specifying constraints on parameters on the platform
employed. Moreover, with complex models, working out formulas
is relatively error prone, as they may comprise many terms, and it
is quite easy to miss one of them. For example, the formula in
Y1
1
11
X1 Y1
31
21
31 Y3
1
12
21
X2
32
Y3
22
13
33
32
X3 Y2
23
1
Y2
Figure 6. An example path model taken from Bollen (1989, p. 383).
 42 MACHO AND LEDERMANN

X 11_ 11
Y1 _1
31
21
31

12
21
1 X 21_ 32 Y3 1_
1 22
s1_
1
13 33
32 1
X 31_ Y21_
1 23 1
1 t2_
s2_ t1_
1 0 2
X 1 2_ Y 1_

31 0 1 1
1 21
1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

s3_ 1 0 0
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

X 22_ 32
Y3 _2
22

0 33
32

X 32_ Y2 2_
23

A
1
X1_ 11

Y1_
31
12
1
X2_ 21 Y3_
13

1 Y2_ 32

X3_

Figure 7. Two phantom models for estimating and testing the effect of the exogenous variables X1, X2, and X3
on Y2 and Y3 mediated by Y1, for the model of Figure 6. The phantom model in Figure 7A simulates the approach
of Bollen (1987, 1989). The phantom model in Figure 7B represents the same specific effect.

Example 2 contrasting the direct and the indirect effect of positive
moods on task performance takes on the following algebraic form:
␥ SE.PM ⫻ 关␤ TP.SE ⫻ ␤ TPF.TP ⫹ ␤ TPF.SE ⫹ ␤ HOC.SE ⫻ ␤ CHS.HOC
⫻ 共␤ TP.HOC ⫻ ␤ TPF.TP ⫹ ␤ TPF.CHS兲] ⫹ ␥ TP.PM ⫻ ␤ TPF.TP
⫹ 共␥ HOC.PM ⫻ ␤ CHS.HOC ⫹ ␥ CHS.PM兲
⫻ 共␤ TP.CHS ⫻ ␤ TPF.TP ⫹ ␤ TPF.CHS兲 ⫺ ␥ TPF.PM
The formula for estimating and testing the comparison in Ex-
ample 3 is even more complex. In addition, errors of omission are
difficult to detect. The incorporation of the phantom model, on the
other hand, should be less error prone for users with some expe-
rience in implementing SEMs (this is certainly the case if the
program contains a graphical interface), as it requires only “more
of the same,” namely, the capability to implement a latent variable
model and to specify fixed and equality constraints. Thus, with
complex effects or contrasts, we would recommend the use of the
phantom model representation additionally to the algebraic repre-
sentation as a test for the correctness of the worked out formula.
Furthermore, for nonrecursive models with more than two vari-
ables making up a nonrecursive cycle (see, e.g., Berry, 1984), the
algebraic method is no longer practicable, as formulas for specific
effects involving cycles including more than two variables repre-
sent entries of inverted matrices with more than two rows and
columns, respectively. Without the help of mathematical software,
these formulas are usually too complicated to be worked out
analytically.
The phantom model approach might be less favorable for users
employing programs, like Mplus and LISREL, that enable the
specification of nonlinear constraints, specifically in case of simple
models. For example, the comparison of the direct with the indirect
effect for the three-variables mediator model (see, e.g., Shrout &
Bolger, 2002) is more easily accomplished with the method of
Cheung (2007). In this case, the phantom model approach is
indicated only for users of SEM programs that do not allow for the
specification of nonlinear constraints. The same is true for other
models of low to medium complexity. Finally, for users of Mx or
OpenMx who are probably familiar with the matrix formulations
of SEM models, it may be convenient to use the phantom model in
connection with the matrix formula for computing total effects (cf.
 THE PHANTOM MODEL APPROACH
the R files on our website employing OpenMx to implement the
examples).
The phantom model approach offers a convenient and powerful
method for estimating, testing, and comparing arbitrary specific
effects within the SEM framework. The method demands from
users the ability to implement a latent variable model representing
the specific effect or contrast as a total effect and to use the
bootstrapping capabilities of the SEM program. It does not require
the manipulation of matrices or complex formulas, and its appli-
cation is with nonrecursive models as easily as with recursive ones,
including manifest as well as latent variables. In addition, the
approach allows for the bootstrapping of confidence intervals.
These features render the method particularly suitable for applied
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
researchers who would like to test and compare specific effects
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
that were hitherto— due to the complexity of methods required or
due to restrictions of SEM programs— out of reach.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of
incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. A. Schumacker (Eds.),
Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp.
243–277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berry, W. D. (1984). Nonrecursive causal models. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bollen, K. A. (1987). Total, direct, and indirect effects in structural
equation models. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol.
17, pp. 37– 69). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
doi:10.2307/271028
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical
and bootstrap estimates of variability. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociological
methodology (Vol. 20, pp. 115–140). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Cheung, M. W.-L. (2007). Comparison of approaches to constructing
confidence intervals for mediating effects using structural equation
models. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 227–246.
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., Jr., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Report-
ing practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some
recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14, 6 –23. doi:10.1037/
a0014694
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279 –294. doi:
10.1177/0265407596132007
43
Kurdek, L. A. (1998). The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change
in marital quality over the first 4 years of marriage for first-married
husbands and wives. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 494 –510.
doi:10.1037/0893-3200.12.4.494
Ledermann, T., & Macho, S. (2009). Assessing mediation in simple and
complex models. Manuscript submitted for publication.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2000). Contrasts in multiple mediator models. In J.
Rose, L. Chassin, C. C. Presson, & S. J. Sherman (Eds.), Multivariate
applications in substance use research: New methods for new questions
(pp. 141–160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distributions of the product of resampling
methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99 –128. doi:10.1207/
s15327906mbr3901_4
Mooney, C. Z., & Duval, R. D. (1993). Bootstrapping: A nonparametric
approach to statistical inference. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rindskopf, D. (1984). Using phantom and imaginary latent variables to
parameterize constraints in linear structural models. Psychometrika, 49,
37– 47. doi:10.1007/BF02294204
Schafer, J. L. (1999). NORM: Multiple imputation of multivariate contin-
uous data under a normal model [Computer software]. Retrieved from
http://www.stat.psu.edu/⬃jls/misoftwa.html
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-
experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7, 422– 445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
Sobel, M. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard
errors in covariance structure models. In N. B. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological
methodology (Vol. 16, pp. 159 –186). Washington, DC: American So-
ciological Association.
SPSS. (2007). SPSS Missing Values 17.0: Reference manual. Chicago, IL: Author.
Retrieved from http://support.spss.com/ProductsExt/SPSS/ESD/17/Download/
User%20Manuals/English/SPSS%20Missing%20Values%2017.0.pdf
Stine, R. (1989). An introduction to bootstrapping methods: Examples and
ideas. Sociological Methods & Research, 18, 243–291. doi:10.1177/
0049124189018002003
Tsai, W.-C., Chen, C.-C., & Liu, H.-L. (2007). Test of a model linking
employee positive moods and task performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1570 –1583. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1570
Woody, E., & Sadler, P. (2005). Structural equation models for inter-
changeable dyads: Being the same makes a difference. Psychological
Methods, 10, 139 –158. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.2.139
Received June 26, 2009
Revision received August 3, 2010
Accepted September 2, 2010 䡲