Burt, R. S. (1973) - Confirmatory Factor-Analytic Structures and The Theory Construction Process.

The confirmatory factor-analytic model of analysis is discussed in terms of the
general process of constructing social theory-the generation of parameter

estimates for a proposed structure, the assessment of a proposed structure, the
interpretation of a proposed structure, and example applications. First-order,
second-order, and structural equation confirmatory factor models are dis-
cussed in relation to Joreskog’s model for the estimation of parameters in
general theoretical structures, LISREL.
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR-ANALYTIC STRUCTURES

AND THE THEORY CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
RONALD S. BURT
Department of Sociology
University of Chicago
n
n a article establishing, in sociology, the

pace-setting
efficient estimation of path coefficients in structural
models incorporating unobserved variables, Hauser and Gold-
berger (1971: 87-95) discussed a type of structural model based
on the confirmatory factor-analytic model of analysis. Their
discussion has recently been extended in the general literature
by Werts et al. (1973). The focus of interest in these and related
articles, however, is on the estimation of structural parameters.
The purpose of the present discussion is to increase the
utility of the confirmatory factor-analytic model of analysis to
AUTHOR’S NOTE. Portions of this paper were presented in the Methodology
Section of the 1973 annual meetings of the American Sociological Associa-
tion. Work on the paper was supported by a research fellowship from the State
University of New York at Albany and a grant from the Civil Defense
Preparedness Agency (DAHC-20- 72-C-0320). I appreciate the reactions made
to an earlier draft of the paper by Arthur Goldberger, Robert Hauser, Nan Lin,
and Robert Pruzek. Thanks also to Bill Van Hassle of the Educational Testing
Service for his patience while I worked with LISREL.
SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH, Vol. 2 No. 2, November 19733
n 1973 Saqe Publications. Inc.
[131]
Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

[132]
a larger audience than the small core of sociologists currently

active in the discussion of structural equations. The present
discussion ties the confirmatory factor model of analysis to the
practical activity of constructing social theory. Rather than
treat the confirmatory model as an esoteric estimation pro-
cedure, the discussion seeks to illustrate the significant potential
of the confirmatory model in the quantification of general
theoretical structures. For individuals not yet familar with the
confirmatory factor model, Joreskog (1966) discusses the
theoretical reasons behind the development of the model,
Joreskog (1969) discusses the first-order confirmatory factor
model, Joreskog (1970) is the original discussion of the
second-order factor model, and Joreskog (1973) is the recent
discussion of the second-order factor model which allows full
restriction of the interpretation of unobserved variables and
allows causal relations among multiple unobserved variables to
be estimated.
The plan of the discussion is as follows: the second (next)
section briefly outlines the general confirmatory factor-analytic
model in terms of structural equations and path estimation
equations. The third section then suggests procedures for the
assessment of the adequacy of a proposed structure based on
the confirmatory factor-analytic model. The fourth section
presents a reconsideration of the two concept structure dis-
cussed by Hauser and Goldberger (1971 : Figure 2) and Werts et
al. (1973: Figure 5) using the data analyzed by Hauser (1969).
The fifth section presents an illustration of the treatment of
direct correlations between an unobserved variable and non-
indicant observed variables. The fourth and fifth sections serve
to illustrate how the confirmatory factor model may be used to
answer the theoretical questions suggested in the third section.
Finally, the sixth section outlines the application of the

confirmatory factor model to the general theory construction
process. Brief comments conclude the discussion.

[133]
THE MODEL OF ANALYSIS
Figure 1 presents interpretations of the same set of data.

two
Figure 1 a presents the two-concept structure in which the
concepts are correlated. Figure 1 b presents a three-concept
structure in which two antecedent concepts are used to predict
a consequent concept. Throughout the forthcoming discussion,
exogenous unobserved variables will refer to those unobserved

variables which are not the consequence of any other unob-
served variables in a structure, and endogenous unobserved
variables will refer to unobserved variables which are predicted
by antecedent concepts. Observed variables labeled as Xi refer
to indicants of the exogenous variables, and observed variables
labeled as Y, refer to indicants of the endogenous variables.
With no loss of generality, variables are assumed to be
standardized.
The structural equations describing the structure given in
Figure I a are as follows:
where x refers to the number of indicants of the exogenous

unobserved variable A, y refers to the number of indicants of
the endogenous unobserved variable C, ISis a factor loading
(epistemic correlation), leading to observed variable &dquo;i,&dquo; vi is a
residual score associated with observed variable Xi, the
8v.is

Figure 1: TWO BASIC CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYTIC STRUCTURES
[134]

[135]
residual path coefficient leading to observed variable Xi, wi is a

residual score associated with observed variable Yi) 0~. the
is
residual path coefficient leading to observed variable Yi, 0 is the
correlation coefficient between the unobserved variables (which
for Figure la, is a path coefficient since there is only one causal
variable), and e and 0 . are, respectively, a residual score
associated with an endogenous unobserved variable and the
residual path coefficient leading to an unobserved variable.
Following the logic of generating estimation equations from
structural equations (Duncan, 1966; Land, 1969; Van de Geer,
1971: 115-119; Burt, 1973a: 65-67), and the idea of compound
path coefficients (Wright, 1960; Finney, 1972; Burt, 1973a:
119-125), three types of estimation equations can be generated
from structural equations I a through 1 c:
(1) for the correlations among the indicants of an unobserved variable,
(2) for the correlations between the indicants of different unobserved

variables,
(3) for the correlations of indicants with themselves,
Using the estimation equations, the original correlation matrix

of the total set of indicants can be represented in terms of the
path coefficients to be estimated for the structural model
(throughout this section, only the upper half of symmetric
matrices are presented):

[136]
or, in terms of the estimation equations given above:
The matrix of predicted correlations (or alternatively of

variances and covariances) can be factored into three types of
matrices; a matrix of factor loadings (epistemic correlations)
referenced as 0 of order (x by q), a (q by q) matrix of factor
correlations, <1>, and a diagonal matrix of residual variances, 0 2 ,
of order (r by r):~1

[137]
The summary equation given in equation 3 is the general

equation of factor analysis. The model is to be distinguished
from the usual notion of factor analysis in that the theorist can
restrict parameters to be equal to a priori values (fixed
parameters), or to be equal to other parameters in the structure
(constrained parameters). Since some of the factor loadings and
factor correlations have been a priori restricted to specific
values, the analysis is discussed as a confirmatory factor model
(Joreskog, 1973, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1966; Joreskog and
Lawley, 1968; Gebhardt, 1971; Lawley and Maxwell, 1972;
Mulaik, 1972: 361-401; Burt, 1973a: 190-216; Werts et al.,
1973). The model of analysis outlined in equation 3 is a

[138]
first-order factor model-it involves a single application of the

general equation of factor analysis. For some theoretical
structures which are more complicated than that presented in
Figure la, a second-order factor analytic model is needed.
Speaking roughly, a second-order factor model will compute the
results of a first-order factor analysis such as given in equation 3
and will simultaneously compute a second factor analysis on the
results of the first analysis. The general equation was given by
Joreskog (1970) as
where the parameter matrices ð., <1>, and q,2 are given in
equation 3, B is a matrix of second-order factor loadings
2
(epistemic correlations), and 82 is a diagonal matrix of
second-order residual variances. Equation 4 can be reduced to a
first-order factor model by forcing B to be an identity matrix
and 4,2to be a null matrix.
In order to generate unique estimates of the unrestricted
parameters in equations 3 and 4 (i.e., a solution such that all
linear transformations of the parameter matrices which leave
the restricted parameters unchanged also leave the free para-
meters unchanged), the theorist must restrict at least q2 (q =
the number of unobserved variables) elements inn and <1>,
where each column &dquo;s&dquo; of 0 contains at least &dquo;s-1&dquo; restrictions
(Joreskog, 1970: 244; 1969: 186).
Although the second-order factor analytic model allows the
theorist to compute &dquo;regression&dquo; coefficients among the un-
observed variables in a structure, it is awkward and it does not
let the theorist restrict values for the epistemic correlations of
all the unobserved variables (Joreskog, 1970: 248-251 ). In order
to allow such restrictions and to simplify the process of
applying the model, Joreskog (1973) developed another model
for the analysis of covariance structures. This most recent
model draws on both equation 3 and 4 to provide the theorist
with the option of restricting the interpretability of unobserved
variables among which path coefficients are to be computed.

[139]
Following the logic of the separation of structural equations

path estimation equations into three types (equations la
through 1 c), the correlation matrix of the observed variables
can be partitioned into three submatrices (compare equation 2):
( 1 ) RX X an (x by x) matrix of the correlations of the indicants

of the exogenous unobserved variables; (2) Ry y a (y by y)
matrix of the correlations of the indicants of the endogenous
unobserved variables; and (3) Rxy an (x by y) matrix of the
correlations of the indicants of the exogenous unobserved
variables with the indicants of the endogenous unobserved
variables. Drawing on equations 2 and 3, the observed matrix S
can be discussed as a collection of types of first-order factor
models,
where m equals the number of endogenous unobserved variables

and n equals the number of exogenous unobserved variables.
Consider the structure given in Figure 1 b. Since there is more
than one antecedent unobserved variable, the factor intercorre-
lation matrix, -1), will not contain elements equal to path
coefficients as was the case for Figure 1 a. Thus, the factor
intercorrelation matrices in equation 5a involving endogenous
unobserved variables (<I>nm and <l>m m) must take into account
the path coefficients leading from the exogenous unobserved
variables to the endogenous unobserved variables as well as
consider the correlations between the two sets of unobserved
variables.
The endogenous unobserved variable in Figure 1 b is described
by one structural equation
where yg is used to reference causal path coefficients rather

than the more common notation of P1j in the interest of

[140]
comparability with Joreskog (1973). Two path estimation

equations can be generated from the above equation:
which can be combined into matrices following the notation of

equation 5a :
so that the path coefficients among the unobserved variables

will be contained in an (m by n) matrix r.
The values of the correlations between the exogenous and
endogenous unobserved variables can thus be found in terms of
path coefficients and the correlations of the exogenous unob-
served variables.
The correlation matrix of the endogenous unobserved vari-
ables can be broken into two parts, a part which is predictable
from the exogenous unobserved variables-the multiple correla-
tion squared, and a part which is not predictable from the
exogenous unobserved variables-the residual path coefficient
squared. The squared multiple correlation of endogenous
unobserved variable C with the two exogenous unobserved
variables in Figure 1 b can be computed as
which be
’
can represented in the notation of equation 5a as

[141]
which, borrowing from equation 5b, equals
Since no proposed theoretical structure will actually be able to

predict all the variation in an endogenous unobserved variable,
in order to describe the complete correlation matrix of the
endogenous unobserved variables, residual path coefficients are
needed. The correlation matrix of the endogenous unobserved
variables can thus be discussed in terms of path coefficients and
the correlations among the exogenous unobserved variables as
where ’¥2 is the variance-covariance matrix of the residual path

coefficients for the endogenous unobserved variables.
While equations 5b and 5c are sufficient to estimate
parameters for theoretical structures such as those illustrated in
this paper, when more than a single endogenous variable is being
proposed the elements of r will be compound path coefficients
(Wright, 1960; Finney, 1972) so that the separation of the
individual parts of the compound path coefficient can become
complex (e.g., Joreskog, 1970: 248-251 ). In order to allow the
theorist to break compound path coefficients (among chains of
endogenous variables) into their constituent parts, Joreskog
introduces an (m by m) matrix into the reconstruction of the
matrices 4),, and ~m m labeled B. The (ij)th element of B is
the path coefficient leading from endogenous unobserved
variable j to endogenous unobserved variable i. The inclusion of
the matrix B in the estimation process thus allows the theorist
to postulate feedback loops among the endogenous unobserved
variables since both {3ij and Oji are estimated as independent
parameters. With B taken into consideration, equations 5b and
5c now become, respectively,

[142]
and
Drawing on equations 5a, 5d,and 5e, a confirmatory factor

model can be outlined which will allow the theorist to estimate
path coefficients for theoretical structures involving chains of
causal relations among unobserved variables:
or, in terms of the parameter matrices:
Equation 6 is the most flexible model introduced to the

social sciences to date which deals with the complete variance-
covariance matrix of a set of observed variables. Through a
comparison of equation 6 with 3 and 4, it can be seen that
equation 6 is a combination of first-order and second-order
factor models. Equation 6 can be returned to the simplicity of
the first-order factor model by forcing r and B to be identity
matrices and ’112to be a null matrix. Then n would equal q, the
total number of unobserved variables in a proposed structure.
The estimation procedure becomes one of identifying values
for the flexible parameters such that the original correlation
matrix S, and the predicted correlation matrix E , are maximally
similar with the restricted parameters held constant. The
theorist can use least-squares or maximum-likelihood estimation
procedures. As a general application, maximum-likelihood
estimates would seem to be preferable and are presented here.2

[143]
Following Joreskog (1973, 1970, 1969, 1967, 1966) and

Mulaik (1972: 374-380; 1971 ), maximization of the likelihood
function relating S and I yields values for the matrix E which
minimize the function F as
where all the matrix symbols have been introduced previously,

&dquo;In&dquo; refers to the natural logarithm, r refers to the total number
of observed variables (r =
x + y), andSandlzrefer to the
determinants of S and E respectively. Unfortunately, the values
of I which minimized F(E ) cannot be found analytically, so
they must be sought numerically via an iterative procedure
which gradually converges from initial approximations to final
values of the unrestricted, flexible parameters in ~ X n , AYM9
~ n n ~ r m n ~ ’Y m m ~ ~ x x and Oyy.
The estimates to be presented
in this discussion were computed using the canned program
LISREL (Joreskog and van Thillo, 1972) which is based on the
Fletcher-Powell iterative algorithm.3
THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ADEQUACY

OF A PROPOSED THEORETICAL STRUCTURE
The use of unobserved variables in structural models based on

the confirmatory factor analytic model can serve two basic
functions for the construction of social theory:
(1) the explicit representation of the operationalization of the theoret-

ical structure underlying a research effort, and
(2) the stabilization of research findings over use of particular
empirical indicants of theoretical concepts.
The emphasis of the first function of unobserved variables in

factor models is on the discrepancy between theoretical
concepts and their empirical indicants. Thus the first function
will seek answers to two questions: (1) Are the proposed

[144]
theoretical concepts unidimensional or will more than one

unobserved variable be required to account for the empirical
indicants of the concept? (2) Do the empirical indicants of a
theoretical concept make widely different contributions to the
postulated unobserved variable(s) quantifying the concept
(where contributions are measured by the magnitude of the
epistemic correlations associated with an unobserved variable)
so that the concept becomes defined more by a subset of its
indicants than by the entire set of its constituent indicants?
The emphasis of the second function of unobserved variables
in factor models is on the relationships among the theoretical
concepts. Here again the function will seek answers to two
questions: (3) What are the relations among the theoretical
concepts as quantified by unobserved variables? (4) Are the
specific relationships uniform or are they an average of widely
disparate relationships between the indicants of the separate
concepts? The first question focuses on the deletion of
negligible causal paths from a theoretical structure and the
adequacy of the proposed theoretical structure as a source of
explanation. The latter question is discussed as the point-varia-
bility of composite variables by Wright (1960: 190-191) and
Burt (1973a: 257-263; 1973b).
The example structures to be introduced in the fourth and
fifth sections are presented as illustrations of how the confirma-
tory factor model can be used to answer the above four
theoretical questions. The sixth section then ties these specific
models into a general theoretical structure.
The problem for the social theorist opting to apply the factor
analytic model to his or her research interests is one of using the
information generated by the confirmatory factor model and
the available test statistics to answer the above four questions.
In considering the available test statistics, it needs to be
borne in mind that a structural model can be assessed on two
dimensions: (1) the adequacy with which a proposed structure
is able to describe the total set of relations among a set of
observed variables while using a more parsimonious set of
relations, and (2) the adequacy with which a proposed structure

[145]
is able to reconstruct or predict theoretically endogenous

variance. Simple endogenous variables are, in general, variables
which are predicted by other variables in a proposed structure.
Thus, all the observed variables in Figure 1 are endogenous.
Theoretically endogenous variation is used here to refer to those
unobserved variables which are being predicted in a proposed
structure. This distinction between theoretically endogenous
variation and simple endogenous variation is important in
structures involving unobserved variables in order to differen-
tiate the above two dimensions of adequacy. The first dimen-
sion of adequacy can be discussed as the internal validity of a
proposed structure, since it is solely concerned with the
parsimonious representation of the complete set of observed
variables with a smaller number of unobserved variables.
Following this logic, the second dimension of adequacy can be
discussed as the external validity of a proposed structure, since
it is solely concerned with the ability of the structure as a
source of prediction, in comparison to other structures which
specify different causal structures (a more detailed discussion of

the internal and external validity of structural models is given in
Burt, 1973a: 89-117).
An assessment of the external validity of proposed a
structure will have to take into account the path-analytic

assumption that theoretically endogenous variation is complete-
ly predicted in a proposed structure by the causal variables-
except for random variation (Wright, 1960; Heise,969; Burt,
1973a: 43-56). Rather than test against the null hypothesis of
complete failure to predict theoretically endogenous variation,
as in the traditional test of significance of a multiple correlation
coefficient (Darlington, 1968), a statistic of external validity

must be tested against the null hypothesis of complete
prediction of theoretically endogenous variation. Further, the
statistic must consider the number of antecedent variables in a
causal structure. Greater power of explanation rests with the
structure which can explain a given amount of variation with
fewer antecedent variables. As derived in Burt (1973a:
102-103), under the null hypothesis that a proposed structure is

[146]
able to completely predict the variation in a particular

endogenous unobserved variable with the proposed number of
antecedent variables,
will be distributed as a chi-square statistic with k degrees of

freedom. &dquo;R&dquo; refers to the multiple correlation of the endoge-
nous unobserved variable with the causal antecedent unobserved
variables. For path coefficients among only observed variables,
k refers to the number of directly causal variables. For path
coefficients among unobserved variables, however, k will equal
the total number of empirical indicants of the endogenous
unobserved variable minus one, plus the number of indicants of
the unobserved variables directly causal to the endogenous
observed variable. Thus, k equals the degrees of freedom in the
prediction of the endogenous unobserved variable.4 Since X2
will vary between zero and k, a one-tailed test of significance is
appropriate with rejection of a proposed structure for small
values of x2 .
In assessing the internal validity of a proposed structure, the
theorist has a variety of options available since this is the usual
focus of discussion when a confirmatory factor model is
assessed. By choosing maximum-likelihood estimates for a
proposed theoretical structure, the theorist is given the ability
to make inferences concerning the population structure based
on the analysis of sample data. If the proposed theoretical
structure has a strong likelihood of being the population
structure, the internal validity of the structure is high. A general
test statistic is available which will indicate the overall fit of a
proposed structure to a set of data. This test statistic has the
advantage of being quickly computed, but the concomitant
disadvantages of insensitivity to modifications in a structure
based on a large sample of respondents and of indicating only
the general fit of a proposed structure to a set of data without
reference to where the structure is strong or weak. If the
theorist wishes to know not only if a proposed structure is

[147]
inadequate, but also wishes to know where the structure is

inadequate, a general test statistic is insufficient. One alternative
to the general test statistic is the use of the discrepancies
between the original variance-covariance matrix S, and the
predicted variance-covariance matrix I (Burt, 1973a: 107-117,
181-245). Where discrepancies are large, the fit is poor. In
addition to the discrepancies between S and 2;, the theorist can
use the information output by LISREL to compute standard
errors for the estimated parameters (Joreskog, 1973).
There aretwo summary statistics available which measure the
adequacy with which a proposed structure fits a set of data.
Joreskog (1971: 110; 1969: 191-193; 1967: 457-458;
Mulaik, 1972: 381-382) suggests a goodness-of-fit statistic based
on the likelihood ratio comparing the original variance-covari-
ance matrix with the predicted variance-covariance matrix via
equation 7. Under the null hypothesis that the proposed

theoretical structure is the &dquo;true&dquo; population structure,
will be distributed as a chi-square statistic with
degrees of freedom where r is the number of observed variables

in the structure and U~,5 UBUr,5 U4) ~ U’¥ and U~ are the
number of independent unrestricted parameters to be estimated
in the structure contained inn (b.xn and ~y m ), Bm m , r m n ,the
lower halves of 4) n n and ’11 m m (including the diagonals), and
the diagonal of e (e x x and O y y ). Equation 10 therefore
indicates the number of overidentifying restrictions associated
with a proposed structure. Since high values of equation 9 lead
to rejection of a proposed structure, a one-tailed test of
significance is appropriate.
Equation 9 asks that the N be large in order for the
distribution of the test statistic to approximate a chi-square
distribution; however, as N gets large, the theorist will be forced

[148]
to retain meaningless factors in his proposed structure in order

to prevent equation 9 from becoming statistically significant.
For extremely large sample sizes, such as the 17,000 respond-
ents analyzed in Hauser ( 1969), almost no theoretical structure
will be adequate unless every possible factor is retained in the
final structure (i.e., unless the number of unobserved variables
equals the number of observed variables). In such a case, the
factor analytic model looses its ability to make parsimonious
statements based on the covariance of a set of observed
variables.
In order to avoid the extreme sensitivity of the likelihood
ration (equation 9) to large sample sizes when a proposed
structure is being assessed, Tucker and Lewis (1973) have
outlined a measure of a structure’s ability to explain the
covariance of the observed variables included in a structural
model. This is in contrast to equation 9 which measures the
ability of a structure to explain the total variance of the
observed variables. Tucker and Lewis’s statistic is sensitive to
sample size in its computation of the expected value of
explained covariance (sampling variability), but it is much less
subject to large sample sizes than is the likelihood ratio since it
focuses on covariation rather than on total variation. Following
Tucker and Lewis (1973: 4), the sum of squared covariances
not explained by a proposed structure can be found as
where F(~)q is the computed point of the likelihood

minimum
function (equation 7) for a proposed postulating q
structure
unobserved variables, and dfq is the number of degrees of
freedom associated with the proposed structure (equation 10;
both values are routinely available from the output of ACOVSF
since the chi-square statistic equals N [ F(z )and dfq is printed).
Similarly, the sum of squared covariances which could have
been explained by a proposed structure can be found as

[149]
where (Slj)refers to the off-diagonal elements of the observed

variance covariance matrix S, so that the numerator of equation
12 equals the sum of squares of the off-diagonal elements of S
on one side of the main diagonal. The expected value of the
sum of squared covariances not explained by a proposed
structure involving q unobserved variables is given as
Combining the above information into a ratio yields the statistic

Tucker and Lewis refer to as a reliability coefficient:
As the ratio in equation 14 decreases, it shows that a proposed

structure is inadequate to explain the covariation among the
observed variables-more unobserved variables are required.
Unlike the x2 statistic, however, the sampling distribution
of pq
is not known. It is a descriptive rather than a &dquo;test&dquo; statistic.
Tucker and Lewis usually discuss a structure as adequate when
the reliability coefficient is above .9; however, the true value of
the coefficient is in relation to the values it assumes for a
variety of alternative structures based on the same observed
variables.
Since the x2 statistic offered by Joreskog looses its ability to
differentiate theoretical structures as the sample size gets large,
and since the reliability coefficient, pq , offered by Tucker and
Lewis has no known sampling distribution, for large samples
both statistics are qualitative values, so that the application of
these general statistics involves a different test methodology

[150]
than that most common in sociology. Rather than making an

accept-reject decision on a proposed structure, the emphasis is
placed on the relative value of a particular structure in relation
to alternatives to the particular structure (e.g., Joreskog, 1971:
131-132, 1969: 200-201; McGaw and Joreskog, 1971; Tucker
and Lewis, 1973). As illustrated in the McGaw and Joreskog
and the Tucker and Lewis articles, the theorist establishes a
range of values over which the descriptive statistics can vary.
The structure is then retained which gives the theorist the
smallest relative increase in the values of the statistics while
giving him the maximum amount of parsimony. In this type of
qualitative evaluation of alternative structures, the reliability
coefficient suggested by Tucker and Lewis has an advantage
over the chi-square statistic based on the likelihood ratio, in
that since the reliability coefficient varies between zero and
positive one, the relative change in the test statistic can be
weighed against the possible change it could make. The
likelihood ratio, on the other hand, can be equal to any real
number so that there is no ceiling against which values of Xcan
be compared.55
For each of the example structures to be discussed, the
external validity of the structure (x2 from equation 8), the
internal validity of the structure (X2 from equation 9 and pq
from equation 14), the matrix of predicted variances and
covariances, E , and the differences between the original
variance-covariance matrix and the predicted variance covari-
ance matrix, are presented.
Table I presents the standardized variance-covariance matrix
for the observed variables to be considered in the next two
sections. These example data are taken from a survey of rural
housewives in El Salvador.
A RECONSIDERATION OF THE
TWO-CONCEPT THEORETICAL STRUCTURE
In his analysis of informal social organizations involving

directors of state health departments, Becker (1970) found that

[151]
TABLE 1
PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS AMONG THE OBSERVED
VARIABLES IN FIGURES 2 AND 3a
a. Correlations taken from Burt (1973c), n=327.

b. Vanable defmtions: X1-ownership of radio (1-yes, 0-no) ; X2-read newspaper
in previous week (1-yes, 0-no); Y3-degree of integration into the influence
network in the village; Y4-degree of integration into the communication network in
the village. Social integration indices are based on sociometric friendship data.
directors who were central in the social network were those

individuals who usually were the first persons to be aware of
health program innovations. Thus, high exposure to new ideas
external to the social network led to centrality in the social
network. A logical subsequent question asks whether Becker’s
findings are valid for informal social groups not based on
professionals. Burt (1973c) analyzed data on the informal social
organization of rural villages in El Salvador. Drawing from that
analysis, Figure 2 presents a theoretical structure exploring the
causal impact of exposure to mass media on a villager’s general
integration into a village informal social network.
In Figure 2, two structures are presented which postulate
identical theoretical structures but which present different
estimates of the structural parameters in the structure. Follow-
ing the usual estimation procedure (Hauser and Goldberger,
1971; Werts et al., 1973; Joreskog, 1973), the estimates given in
Figure 2 were computed from the entire set of observed
variables where the epistemic correlations (factor loadings) were
unrestricted within concepts. For Figure 2a, the parameter
matrices from equations 3 and 4 were

~ ~ ---- .m_- -
Figure 2: THE TWO CONCEPT THEORETICAL STRUCTURE-QUANTIFICA-

TION OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN CONCEPTS AND ASSESS-
MENT OF POSSIBLE DIFFERENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO AB-
STRACT CONCEPTS BY EMPIRICAL INDICANTS.
[152]

[153]
where B was an identity matrix and 4, was a null matrix. Thus,

the parameter matrices for equation 6 were
or, in terms of <Pab as a path coefficient,

[154]
Since there is only one antecedent variable in Figure 2 and one

endogenous unobserved variable, both sets of parameter ma-
trices given above will yield the same values for the parameters
of Figure 2a. The second set will save the few seconds it takes
to compute the residual path coefficient leading to the concept
of social integration (B); however, it is underidentified (equa-
tion 10 equals -1 ).
In contrast to the standard application of the confirmatory
factor model, the estimates given in Figure 2b were computed
in two separate analyses. First, the indicants of each concept
were factor analyzed separately to find out what the epistemic
correlations for each concept would be if the indicants of the
’
other unobserved variable(s) were not considered in the
analysis. Secondly, the same parameter matrices as for Figure 2a i
were used to estimate the parameters of Figure 2b except that
all epistemic correlations and residual variances of observed
variables were held constant through the analysis. Through this
process, the definition, or interpretability, of each theoretical
concept was held constant throughout the analysis. The
parameter matrices for Figure 2b as given in equations 3 and 4
were then
where B was an indentity matrix and 4r was a null matrix. The

above parameter matrices can be broken down into the
parameter matrices for equation 6 in the same manner as was
done for Figure 1 a. Notice for Figure 2b, since additional
restrictions were placed on the structure, it can be estimated as
a linear model (equation 6) without becoming underidentified
(equation 10 equals 3).

Since the number of restrictions for both first-order factor

[155]
structures wasgreater than q2 (q total number of unobserved

=
variables), and the restrictions were properly distributed in 0

and 4>, the estimates presented in Figure 2 are unique.
The information discussed in the previous section and
necessary for the assessment of the adequacy of the proposed
structure is given in Table 2. Table 2a corresponds to Figure 2a,
and Table 2b corresponds to Figure 2b.
TABLE 2
INFORMATION FOR ASSESSING THE ADEQUACY OF THE
STRUCTURE PRESENTED IN FIGURE 2

[156]
Turning now to the four theoretical questions of interest in

relation to the structure outlined in Figure 2 in the order in
which they were previously introduced, the four questions
become:
(1) Are two unobserved variables sufficient to describe the four

observed variables?
(2) Are the concepts of media exposure and social integration
mass
more dependent onparticular observed variables than they are on
others, or are the concepts equally defined by each of the observed
variables used as constituent indicants?
(3) Does the model postulate sufficient causal structure to
a explain
the theoretically endogenous variable-social integration?
(4) Is the relationship between the two unobserved variables uniform
over the different indicants of each unobserved variable?
The answer to the first question is a strong &dquo;yes.&dquo; As shown

in Table 2 under internal validity, the chi-square statistic
accepted both Figure 2a and 2b. Since Figure 2b had several
more degrees of freedom than did Figure 2a, the power of the
statistical test went up so that even with an increase in X2, the
structure had a much higher level of acceptability than did
Figure 2a. In terms of its ability to explain the covariance
among the observed variables, both reliability coefficients in
Table 2 indicate that the structure is &dquo;adequate.&dquo;6 Notice the
matrices labeled misapproximations in Table 2. The estimates in
both Figures 2a and 2b were able to completely reconstruct the
variances and covariances of the observed variables within each
concept, thus showing that while the use of one unobserved
variable was sufficient to quantify the concepts of mass media
exposure and social integration respectively, the weakness in
fitting Figure 2 to the data resulted from the variety of
relationships between the indicants of the different concepts.
A quick inspection of Figure 2a is sufficient to notice the
differential contributions to the two unobserved variables made
by their constituent indicants. As a preliminary answer to the
second question, therefore, the interpretation of the unobserved

[157]
variables would not be as general concepts uniformly indicated

by a set of operationalizations but rather would be as general
concepts strongly characterized by particular observed variables.
For example, social integration would be interpreted as being
more a function of integration into the communication net-
work, Y4 , than a function of integration into the influence

network, Y3.
Notice however, the difference between the epistemic cor-
relations in Figure 2a and those in Figure 2b. While Figure 2a
indicates that mass media exposure is better characterized by
X2 (newspaper reading) than by X, (radio ownership), Figure
2b indicates that mass media exposure is an equal function of
both indicants. While Figure 2a indicates the differential
contributions made to social integration by its constituent
indicants, Figure 2b shows that social integration is also an
equal function of both its indicants.’
The difference in the epistemic correlations presented in
Figures 2a and 2b has been discussed as an aspect of the
interpretability of unobserved variables extracted by the con-
firmatory factor analytic model of analysis (Burt, 1973b) and
can be quickly explained through a consideration of the Venn
diagram presented in Figure 3a. Since the variables have been

standardized, the variance of the observed variables can be
represented by unit circles, as shown in Figure 3a; and the
overlap between circles can be discussed as covariance. The area
marked with lines slanted to the lower right in Figure 3a marks
the covariance of X, with X2, and thus the covariance which
will serve to define the unobserved variable of mass media
exposure. The area marked with lines slanted to the lower left
marks the covariance of the indicants of social integration, Y33
and Y4 . Both areas of covariation are labeled with the letter of
the unobserved variable for which they form the basis. The
square root of the overlap between the two unobserved
variables will then be the basis for the correlation between the
two unobserved variables.
The covariance to be noted in Figure 3a, however, is that
marked with dots-the covariance between the indicants of

Figure 3: SOURCES OF COVARIANCE EMPIRICALLY DESCRIBING THE
STRUCTURES GIVEN IN FIGURES 2 AND 4
[158]

[159]
different unobserved variables. Because the confirmatory fac-

tor-analytic model of estimation will consider all four observed
variables simultaneously, it will take advantage of the covari-
ance of the indicants of separate concepts to improve the fit of
the model to the data set by allowing the covariance of the
indicants of different concepts to influence the extraction of
the unobserved variables. Thus, indicants of concept A which
are strongly correlated with the indicants of concept B will
appear to be more significant in the conceptualization of

concept A. What this means to the theorist is that the
unobserved variables will not only be a function of the
covariance of their constituent indicants, but will also be a
function of the covariance of their constituent indicants with
the indicants of other unobserved variables in a proposed
structure. In this fashion, the confirmatory factor model can
confound the interpretability of the unobserved variables it
extracts. Thus, returning to Figure 2a, social integration is not
more a function of Y4 than Y3 because of the covariance of the
indicants of social integration. Rather, social integration is more
a function of
Y4 because Y4 covaries more with the indicants
of mass media exposure than does Y3 . As pointed out elsewhere
(Burt, 1973a: 190-244; 1973b), this interpretation confounding
can be expected whenever one or both of the following
conditions exist in a structural model: (1) when the indicants of

an unobserved variable are poorly correlated with one another,
or (2) when the relations between the indicants of separate
unobserved variables are poorly represented by a single coeffi-
cient between the unobserved variables (this issue is discussed as
the failure of composite variables to operate as point variables,
in Wright, 1960: 190-191; Burt, 1973a: 257-263). The most
direct procedure for eliminating this interpretational confound-
ing is to run separate maximum-likelihood factor analyses of the
indicants of each theoretical concept separately as was done in
Figure 2b. By separating the analyses of each concept, the
influence of the correlations of indicants of different unob-
served variables cannot affect the extraction of the unobserved
variables.

[160]
This interpretational confounding of the unobserved variables

will usually affect the correlations among the unobserved
variables. In Figure 2, this influence is perceptible; however, it is
not of great consequence. This will not always be the case,
although there does not seem to be a tendency to increase or
decrease the correlations among the unobserved variables. The
confidence which the theorist can place in the interpretation of
the correlation between the unobserved variables is higher for
Figure 2b than for Figure 2a. In reference to the third
theoretical question asked of Figure 2, in Figure 2a the theorist
can not be sure to what extent PB A is the influence of mass
media exposure on social integration, since the two unobserved
variables have been confounded by the covariance of the
indicants of separate concepts. In Figure 2b, on the other hand,
since the two unobserved variables were defined separately only
in terms of their constituent indicants, the theorist can be
confident that the more realistic value of PB A is being
presented. As for the external validity of Figure 2, exposure to
mass media is sufficient to adequately predict social integration.
The final question to be asked of the structure given in
Figure 2 concerns the nature of the relationship between
exposure to mass media and social integration. Is the relation-
ship uniform over the different indicants of each unobserved
variable? It would seem likely that since the indicants of social
integration are so discrepant in Figure 2a in their epistemic
correlations with the unobserved variable of social integration,
exposure to mass media does not exercise uniform influence
over Y33 and Y4. In order to analyze the correlations of an
unobserved variable with nonindicant observed variables, a
different theoretical structure is required from that given in
Figure 2.
CORRELATIONS OF UNOBSERVED VARIABLES WITH

NONINDICANT OBSERVED VARIABLES
Figure 4 presents a theoretical structure which will quantify

the correlations between the unobserved variable of exposure to

[161]
TABLE 3
mass media and each of the indicants of social integration from

Figure 2. The purpose of structures such as Figure 4 is to yield
the correlations between unobserved variables and nonindicant
observed variables, without letting the covariances of the
nonindicant observed variables influence the extraction of the
unobserved variable or the correlations between the unobserved
variable and the nonindicant variables. In order to achieve this

[162]
purpose, the theorist is required to place a considerable number

of restrictions on the structure. The rationale for placing
restrictions can be illustrated using the Venn diagram given in
Figure 3b. As with the diagram in Figure 3a, unit circles
represent variances and the overlap between circles therefore
represents covariance. Also as with Figure 3a, the covariance of
Figure 4: A SINGLE CONCEPT THEORETICAL STRUCTURE-QUANTIFICATION

OF THE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT AND
NON-INDICANT EMPIRICAL VARIABLES

[163]
X, and X2 will be the basis of the unobserved variable of

exposure to mass media. The correlations of the nonindicant
observed variables with the unobserved variable will then be a
function of the square root of the overlap of the area marked
with slanted lines, with the variance of each nonindicant
observed variable. The problem for the theorist is then to
eliminate the influence of the covariance marked with dots on
the estimation of the correlations between the unobserved
variable and the nonindicant observed variables. This is done by
holding the variances and covariances among the nonindicant
variables constant during the estimation of the correlations
between A and Y33 and Y4. Nonindicant variances and
covariances can be held constant by forcing an unobserved
variable to be solely a function of each of the nonindicant
observed variables and by restricting the covariances of these
unobserved variables to the covariances of the nonindicant
observed variables. The factor-intercorrelation matrix will then
contain the correlations between the unobserved variable of
mass media exposure and the observed indicants of social
integration. This model is similar to that outlined by Werts et al.

(1973: Figure 7).
As with Figure 2, the estimates given in Figure 4a were
estimated in the standard fashion where the epistemic correla-
tions associated with unobserved variables having more than a
single indicant are unrestricted. The parameter matrices from
equations 3 and 4 for Figure 4a were therefore
where B was an identity matrix and 4, was a null matrix. Thus,

the parameter matrices from equation 6 were

[164]
For Figure 4b, the parameter matrices were identical except

that 81 a , IS 2 a’ 0y1 and 0y were restricted to the values they
assumed when the indicants of exposure to mass media were
factor analyzed separately.
There are no corresponding parameter matrices for equation
6 when the model is treated as a structural equation model (i.e.,
when and are estimated as path coefficients) since
Oay33 <Pay 4
equation 6 does not allow the theorist to restrict noncausal
relations among the endogenous variables in the structure. The
theorist could restrict {31 2 and {321 to equal zero in equation 6
and then allow the residuals of the endogenous unobserved
variables to be correlated. By so doing, the theorist could see
how much of the covariance of the two endogenous unobserved
variables was incorporated into the two path coefficients a
7y
and but he would not be able to restrict the value of
yy4 a,
Since there was only one antecedent unobserved
<Py 3 y 4’
variable in Figure 4, however, <Pay 3 y y 3 a and <Pay 4 = 1’y 4 a’

[165]
Table 3 shows that the internal validity of Figure 4 is higher

than the already significant adequacy of Figure 2. This is to be
expected since Figure 4 postulates a larger number of unob-
served variables than does Figure 2. The additional restrictions
of Figure 4b over Figure 4a have weakened the fit of the
structure to the data; however, the decrease in goodness-of-fit is
not great (and in proportion to the increase in the degrees of
freedom, is zero).
Figure 4 postulates that the two endogenous unobserved
variables are concomitants where there is no causal relationship
between the variables. An alternative proposal-and one that is
readily available from equation 6-is that the two endogenous
unobserved variables are reciprocally causal. In other words,
there is a feedback, or nonrecursive, path between the two
endogenous variables. This is certainly a logical proposal since
an increase in a villager’s integration into the communication
network would probably increase her contact with other
persons which would then lead to her increased integration into
the influence network. The reverse should also hold. Increased
integration into the influence network should result in increased
integration into the communication network.
Further, the postulation of reciprocal causation between the
two endogenous unobserved variables will be another indication
of the differential prediction of the two indicants of social
integration. The estimation of path coefficients for reciprocally
causal, or simultaneously causal, relationships proceeds as a
solution to stochastic regressors. Values of the endogenous
unobserved variables will be predicted from the antecedent
unobserved variables. These predicted values will then be used
to predict the other endogenous unobserved variable (Gold-
berger, 1964: ch. 7; Burt, 1973a: 159-182). If the path
coefficient leading to Y3 from Y4 is larger than the reciprocal
path coefficient it shows that Y33 has been more
1’y 4 Y 3’ ,
adequately predicted by the specified antecedent unobserved

variables. As estimated in structural equations, therefore,
reciprocal causation between two endogenous variables is not so
much a function of the homeostatic relation between the

Figure 5: AN ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE TO THAT GIVEN IN FIGURE 4-A
NON-RECURSIVE RELATION BETWEEN THE INDICANTS OF A
DISMEMBERED ABSTRACT CONCEPT.
TABLE 4
[166]

[167]
variables as it is a function of the specification of the

antecedent unobserved variables. This point will be important
to the theorist opting to use equation 6 to quantify a structure,
since equation 6 does not easily allow the restriction of
noncausal relations among endogenous unobserved variables.
Thus, concomitant endogenous unobserved variables will often
be treated as reciprocally, simultaneously causal.
Figure 5 presents an alternative structure to that given in
Figure 4. Table 4 presents the information needed to assess the
adequacy of Figure 5. The epistemic correlations were restricted
during the estimation process as was done in Figures 2b and 4b.
Two structural equations describe the relations among the
unobserved variables in Figure 5:
which can be altered to read8
where {3ijis a reciprocally causal path coefficient and 1’ij is a

standard recursive path coefficient. Drawing from the above
pair of equations in matrix form, the parameter matrices of
equation 6 become

[168]
The estimated parameters are presented in Figure 5. The

estimates in Figure 5 are unfortunate in that the high
correlations between the exogenous and endogenous unob-
served variables introduced the problem of multi-collinearity
into the estimation of the nonrecursive path coefficients
between the endogenous unobserved variables (Blalock, 1963;
Burt, 1973a: 78-80, 247-249). The point to be made here,
however, is that by comparing Table 3b with Table 4, it can be
seen that the postulation of a nonrecursive path between the
two endogenous unobserved variables did not affect the size of
the chi-square statistic measuring internal validity. Since more
parameters were being estimated with the same information, the
significance of the statistic went up. Because of the multi-
collinearity problem and the correlation between the residuals,
the external validity of the structure went down; however, the
ratio of the strength of prediction of Y3 versus Y4 has remained
constant.
In terms of the differential relationship between exposure to
mass media and the two indicants of social integration,
inspection of Figure 4 and the differential values of the

nonrecursive path coefficients shows that integration into the
communication network is much more a function of informa-
tion exposure than is integration into the influence network.
This visual difference is reinforced when the external validity of
Figures 4 and 5 is considered in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
While exposure to mass media is adequate to predict integration
into the communication network, it can be rejected as

[169]
inadequate to predict integration into the influence netw rk at

approximately the .08 level of confidence. This then answers
the fourth, and final theoretical question asked of Figure 2 in
the beginning of the previous section.
APPLICATION OF THE CONFIRMATORY

FACTOR-ANALYTIC MODEL OF ANALYSIS
The previous three sections of discussion have outlined and

illustrated four major functions of the confirmatory factor
analytic model analysis and its application. The remaining task
is to apply this discussion to the general theory construction
process.
The theory-construction process-especially as it involves
structural equations-can be divided into five stages:
(1) the specification and operationalization of a general, complete

recursive theoretical structure;
(2) the estimation of structural coefficients among the theoretical
concepts (usually path coefficients);
(3) the elimination of &dquo;negligible&dquo; structural coefficients from the
theoretical structure (i.e., the abbreviation of the complete
recursive structure);
(4) the estimation of structural coefficients for the abbreviated
theoretical structure; and
(5) the assessment of the abbreviated theoretical structure.
The process aspect of theory construction involves the iteration

of stages three through five. Beginning with the complete
recursive structure, the structure is gradually abbreviated to the
point which yields a maximum amount of parsimony while
retaining maximum internal and external validity.
The division of the theory-construction process into these
five stages is concerned with the generation of a parsimonious
theoretical structure for a single set of data. A sixth stage of the
theory-construction process would then be the comparison of

M
z
0
P
4
11
a4
LL.
0
z
0
p
2
cc
0
11
w
x
P
a
z
2
a
J
<1.
x
uj
Hi
CC
D
P
U
cc
P
H
-i
4
0
H
W
CE
0
m
x
t-
w
N3
cc
0
W
OE
a
W
£lla
5
UJ
m
m
en
<
z
<i5
I
&
u.
[170]

[171]
structures based on separate samples of respondents. The

rationale for each stage and the activities involved in each stage
have been discussed elsewhere (Burt, 1973a: 41-181); however,
using Figure 4 as an example, the stages of the theory-construc-
tion process can be quickly clarified. The specification of the
structure involved an investigation of the differential influence
of a concept of exposure to mass media on the integration of a
rural villager into the village communication network versus her
integration into the village social influence network. Through
the use of confirmatory factor analysis, the operationalization
of the three unobserved variables was made explicit in a path
diagram, and a matrix of zero-order correlations among the
unobserved variables was generated. Since there was only one
antecedent unobserved variable being considered, the zero-order
correlations in (D were identical to path coefficients. Neither
causal path was deleted at the .05 level of confidence. The final
theoretical structure given in Figure 4 was then evaluated as an
alternative to the structure presented in Figure 2.
Both the structure given in Figure 2 and that in Figure 4 are
adequate to illustrate the utility of the confirmatory model in
explicitly representing the specification and operationalization
of a theoretical structure. Both are also adequate to illustrate
the general assessment of a theoretical structure based on the
confirmatory factor-analytic model-the fifth stage of the
theory-construction process. Neither, however, is adequate to
illustrate the middle three stages of the theory-construction
process. In order to illustrate the use of the confirmatory model
of analysis in stages two, three, and four of the theory-construc-
tion process, multiple antecedent unobserved variables need to
be simultaneously considered.
SPECIFICATION AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF

A GENERAL THEORETICAL STRUCTURE
Following the discussions of Hauser (1972, 1969), Sewell et

al. (1969), and Sewell et al. (1970), a theoretical structure
specifying the antecedents of the formation of career aspira-
tions in high school students is given in Figure 6.9 Figure 6 is an

(d
W
oe
n
a
E
0
z
NJ
4
z
0
p
4
ce
m
a
0
Hi
lm
3
0
cc
m
J
4
5
W
OC
0
ui
x
t-
W
x
eeo
W
CE
W
H
W
-j
d
0
(i
<
t~
s
out
LL
[172]

[173]
abbreviated recursive structure involving theoretical concepts.

The formation of career aspirations is posited to be a direct
function of a student’s academic achievement and his or her
perception of the expectations significant others’ hold for him
or her. The formation of aspirations is postulated to be an
indirect function of the student’s socioeconomic status and his
or her mental ability.
Borrowing from Hauser’s (1969) analysis of 17,000 white

high school males, Figure 7 presents a complete recursive
structure operationalizing the concepts of Figure 6 with
observed variables. Socioeconomic status is indicated by X1,
father’s education; and X2 , father’s occupation. Intelligence is
indicated by a standardized intelligence test, Y3 . School grades
are indicated by Y4 , arithmetic mark; and Ys, mark in English.
Perception of significant others’ expectations is indicated by

Y6 , perception of father’s educational expectation of son.
Finally, aspiration is indicated by Y.~ , educational aspiration;
and Y8 , occupational aspiration. Figure 7 is a combination of
the two types of models presented in the two previous sections.
The correlations among the observed variables are given in Table
5.
TABLE 5
PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS AMONG THE OBSERVED
VARIABLES IN FIGURES 7 AND 8a
a. Correlations taken from Hauser (1969), n=17,000.

b. Variable definitions: X1-father’s education, X2-father’s occupation, Y3-intel-
hgence quotient, Y4-ar~thmet~c mark, Y5-English mark, Y6-perception of father’s
educational expectation, Y7---educational aspiration, Y8-Occupational aspiration.

[174]
ESTIMATION OF STRUCTURAL COEFFICIENTS

AMONG THE THEORETICAL CONCEPTS
Unlike the previous two theoretical structures considered, the

zero-order correlations in (D, the factor intercorrelation matrix,
are not equivalent to path coefficients in Figure 7 since there
are multiple antecedent variables in the proposed structure.
Once the correlations among the unobserved variables have been
estimated, however, path coefficients among the unobserved
variables are easily available.
For the coefficients which are presented in Figure 6, the
epistemic correlations within concepts were unrestricted where
concepts had multiple indicants. This was done in order to
locate concepts which had differential epistemic correlations for
the reasons given in the fourth section. The parameter matrices
for equations 3 and 4 needed to generate the correlations
among the theoretical concepts in Figure 6 were
and where again B was an identity matrix and 4, was a null

matrix. Restrictions were placed on A, (D, and O according to
the logic outlined in the previous two sections of discussion.
With the correlations among the concepts available in <1>, path

[175]
estimation equations can be generated and solved for the

unknown structural coefficients among the concepts. The
theoretical structure given in Figure 6, as it involves concepts,
can be summarized in four structural equations.
Using the &dquo;basic theorem&dquo; of path analysis (Duncan, 1966) and

equation 16 as an example, two path estimation equations can
be generated:
which can be factored into matrices and solved for the

unknown path coefficients (following the logic leading to
equation 5b),
so that
where refers here to a single endogenous unobserved variable

m
or a set of endogenous unobserved variables which are not
causally related to one another. The structure of concepts given

in Figure 7 is just-identified since every possible recursive causal
path among the unobserved variables is postulated-thus the

[176]
notion of a complete recursive structure (also indicated by the

estimation of ten unknown path coefficients from ten correla-
tions among the unobserved variables).
Values for the unknown path coefficients can be estimated
directly from the correlation matrix of the observed variables
using equation 6. For complete recursive structures such as
Figure 7, the least squares estimation of the path coefficients
given above will be identical to the direct maximum-likelihood
estimation via the more general model given by equation 6.
Equations 15 through 18 can be rewritten as
where gamma represents path coefficients from the exogenous

unobserved variable, beta represents path coefficients from
other endogenous unobserved variables, and the four equations
can be combined into matrix form as
or, in terms of the notation in equation 6,
where t. and 17m are vectors of unobserved exogenous aud

endogenous variables respectively, and t m is a vector of residual

[177]
scores on the endogenous unobserved variables. Joreskog (1973)

presents his model as given in equation 22. Bm m and rm n are
the matrices introduced in the second section of this paper. The
estimates derivative from both equation 21 and 22 are
presented in Figure 7, since the structure proposes a complete
recursive structure among the unobserved variables.
ELIMINATION OF &dquo;NEGLIGIBLE&dquo; STRUCTURAL COEFFICIENTS

FROM THE GENERAL THEORETICAL STRUCTURE
It has frequently been pointed out that selecting criteria of

&dquo;theoretical negligibility&dquo; for large samples is usually an
arbitrary process (Duncan, 1966; Heise, 1969; Burt, 1973a:
72-78; Hauser, 1972). While the theorist can select criteria and
then stringently adhere to these criteria asjustification for the
deletion of &dquo;negligible&dquo; causal paths, the initial selection of
criteria still rests with the individual theorist. The procedure
applied here follows the logic of the use of the goodness-of-fit
statistics outlined in the third section. Using the relative
magnitude of path coefficients in conjunction with the desire to
approximate the abbreviated structure (outlined in Figure 6) by
past theorizing, causal paths were successively deleted from the
complete recursive structure.
Each time a causal path was deleted from the theoretical
structure, the path coefficients for the causal paths retained in
the abbreviated structure were reestimated. This successive
deletion of causal paths and reestimations, served to establish a
range of values of the test statistics of the internal adequacy of
a set of alternative structures. Following the logic outlined in
the third section, the theoretical structure is sought which
deleted a maximum of causal paths yet involved the least
relative decrease in internal validity.
In reference to the complete recursive structure given in
Figure 7, since 7~ and yea were of small ralative magnitude
and were postulated as negligible by the specifications of
previous theory construction efforts (Figure 6), they were the
first two causal paths to be deleted. Thus the influence of

[178]
socioeconomic status and mental ability on the formation of

aspirations was held to be mediated through a student’s
academic achievement and his or her perception of the
expectations of significant others.
ESTIMATION OF STRUCTURAL COEFFICIENTS

FOR THE ABBREVIATED THEORETICAL STRUCTURE
Since the causal paths among the theoretical concepts in

Figures 6 and 7 are a systems of paths, deletion of one path
from the system will have an influence on the strength of the
remaining paths. For this reason, each time a causal path is
deleted, the relationships among the concepts have to be
reestimated.
An important consideration for the theorist during this
reestimation process is the interpretability of the concepts in
the theoretical structure. If the epistemic correlations, and thus
the interpretability of the concepts, are not held constant
during the abbreviation and reestimation process, then the
confirmatory factor model will modify the meaning of the
unobserved variables as well as the values of the coefficients
among the unobserved variables with each reestimation. If the
theorist deletes many causal paths from the complete recursive
system of the unobserved variables, this redefinition of the
unobserved variables could lead to substantial change in the
nature of the concepts in the structure. Inferences drawn from
the abbreviated structure would then be at least misleading, if
not incorrect. (The concepts could indeed be interpreted;
however, the rationale for the interpretation would be obscure.
This is related to the interpretation problem mentioned earlier
in connection with the two-concept theoretical structure
presented in the fourth section.)
In the past, when a causal path was deleted from a complete
recursive structure composed only of observed variables, the
only full-information method of estimating path coefficients for
the remaining causal paths was Boudon’s (1965) procedure
(Burt, 1973a: 79-89). The drawback to the method was its

[179]
considerable sampling variability in the estimation process-the

values of the path coefficients for the abbreviated structure
were inefficient. Following the logic leading to equation 21, the
theorist could use Boudon’s procedure to estimate path
coefficients among the unobserved variables. Due to the
sampling variability problem, however, Joreskog’s (1973) model
presents a more efficient method of estimating path coefficients
for abbreviated structures with single or multiple indicants of
unobserved variables. The method involves simply restricting
specific elements in Bm m and r m n of equation 22 to be equal
to zero during the estimation process. Thus, while holding the
epistemic correlations and residual variances associated with
observed variables constant, the estimation of the path coeffi-
cients among the unobserved variables for the structure which
deleted {3eb and yea would be estimated from the following
parameter matrices with Yy7 and Y8 combined into a single
concept:
The above parameter matrices demonstrate that (since all

other parameters except the matrix of residuals to the unob-
served variables, q, 2, are fixed) causal influence which is deleted
from the complete recursive structure will be rerouted through
the causal paths remaining in the abbreviated structure. If a
major causal path is deleted from the structure, its causal
impact will not be able to be rerouted through other causal
paths in the abbreviated structure so that there would be a large
decrease in internal validity relative to the decreases brought
about by the deletion of &dquo;negligible&dquo; causal paths.

[180]
ITERATIVE ABBREVIATION OF THE COMPLETE

STRUCTURE AND THE ASSESSMENT OF
THE ABBREVIATED STRUCTURE
Figure 8 presents the final abbreviated theoretical structure.

Also presented in Figure 8 is the matrix of misapproximations
to the observed correlation matrix of the observed variables and
the differences between the factor intercorrelation matrix
among the endogenous unobserved variables for the complete
structure, and the same matrix for the abbreviated structure
(<Î>m m is explained in equations 5e and 6a). Information for
assessing the internal validity of Figure 8 and information about
the process leading to the presentation of Figure 8 is presented
in Table 6.
The first issue to be considered is the adequacy of the pro-
posed number of unobserved variables as a representation of
the observed variables. Under &dquo;Selecting an Appropriate Opera-
tionalization&dquo; in Table 6, the effect on internal validity of
successively extracting multiple indicant concepts is presented.
Beginning with a structure which postulated one unobserved
variable for each observed variable, the indicants of concepts
were combined to assess the propriety of their being indicants
of a unidimensional concept. Because of the large sample size,

17,000, nothing less than one unobserved variable for each
observed variable will be a statistically acceptable structure.
Thus, use of the two internal validity statistics becomes
qualitative, as discussed in the third section. The incorporation
of the indicants of socioeconomic status into a single concept
and the incorporation of the indicants of academic achievement
into a single concept brought small changes in the chi-square
statistic (relative to the changes in d.f.) and the reliability
coefficient. The incorporation of the indicants of aspiration
into a single concept, however, brought decreases in the internal
validity statistics which were large in relation to those brought
about by postulation of the first two unobserved variables. This,
in combination with the highly discrepant epistemic correla-
tions for the indicants of aspiration in Figure 7 (showing that
aspiration was not operating as a point variable; see Wright,

[181]
TABLE 6
INFORMATION ON THE ABBREVIATION OF FIGURE 7 TO THE
STRUCTURE PRESENTED IN FIGURE 8-INTERNAL
VALIDITYa
a.
X2
is taken from equation 9 and is taken from equation 14.
~Oq
b. At this point the nonrecursive paths were grossly altered and one residual variance
to an endogenous unobserved variable went over one.
1960; Burt, 1973a), led me to dismiss the conceptualization of

aspirations as a single concept and postulate both a concept of
educational aspiration (unobserved variable F in Figure 8) and
occupational aspiration (unobserved variable G in Figure 8).
The process of abbreviation thus began with a structure
postulating six unobserved variables. Since causal priority of
educational aspiration in relation to occupational aspiration is
unavailable, a nonrecursive path was postulated between the
two indicants of aspiration.

[182]

t~
UJ
cc
3
2
E
2
0
0C
U.
UJ
>
F-
!
2
Ui
0
Ui
CC
3
I-
U
:J
CE
I-
U)
J
a
u
I-
Hi
oe
0
w
i
t-
0
UJ
I-
4c
W
5
cc
co
In
«
J
«
2i-L
m
t-
M
2
iE
[183]

[184]
Since the structural coefficients leading to both educational

and occupational aspiration from mental ability were weak
relative to the other causal paths in the complete structure and
were postulated as negligible by previous theory construction
efforts (Figure 6), they were the first paths to be deleted.
As can be seen from Table 6, the deletion of {3fb and
{3gb
brought about only minor changes in the relability coefficient.
The chi-square statistic was, or course, still highly significant.
Likewise, the deletion of yfa, the direct influence of socio-
economic status on educational aspirations, decreased the
internal validity of the structure only slightly.
The subsequent causal path to be deleted was {3d b’ the direct
influence of mental ability on the perception of the expecta-
tions of significant others. Although previous theory-construc-
tion efforts have proposed such a direct influence, the causal
path from B to D was so weak in relation to the other causal
paths in the structure that it was deleted despite past theorizing
({3d b = .050). The deletion of {3d b had no effect on the internal
validity of the structure.
Table 6 shows that further deletions from the structure began
to rapidly decrease the internal validity of the structure. In
relation to the changes brought about by previous deletions,
either the deletion of l’ ga or the deletion of l’ ca would be
possible points at which the theorist would stop deleting causal
paths from the structure. Certainly the deletion of {3dc and {3gc
brought about decreases which were quite unreasonable in
comparison to previous decreases. The deletion of ’Y c caused
the discrepancies in the diagonal of <Î> m m in Figure 8. This then
would have been a likely place to stop deleting causal paths,
after returning l’ ca to the abbreviated structure.
The structure given in Figure 8 postulates y~d as negligible.
The reason for deleting ’Yca, despite the changes it caused in the
approximations in the diagonal of <Î> m m ’
was the insignificance
of these changes in comparison to those brought about by the
deletion of the next causal path, {3fc’ Judging from the general
statistics given in Table 6, it would appear that the deletion of
{3fc caused little change in the structure over that caused by the

[185]
deletion of ’y~. Drastic change occurred, however, in the form

of a complete reversal of the nonrecursive paths (from both
being positive and low, they changed to one positive and high
while the other was negative and high) and the generation of a
residual path coefficient over unity. Thus the large change
brought about by the deletion of {3fc-even though it did not
cause a large decrease in internal validity-provided the natural
break in the abbreviation process which led me to return {3fc to
the abbreviated structure and present it as appears in Figure 8.
Table 7 presents changes in the external validity caused by
abbreviating the complete structure. Two points deserve men-
tion. First, as an indication of the abbreviation of only
&dquo;negligible&dquo; causal paths, there was little change in the
magnitude of the residual path coefficients for the complete
structure and the abbreviated structure. Second, since the same
amount of endogenous variation was being predicted with fewer
antecedent variables in the abbreviated structure, the external
validity of the structure increased.
Figure 8 is similar to the results of past theorizing except that
there is no direct influence of mental ability on the perception
of the expectations of significant others, and two separate
dimensions of aspirations have been found necessary. The
differential nature of the structure’s prediction of the two
TABLE 7
INFORMATION ON THE CHANGES IN EXTERNAL VALIDITY DUE
TO THE ABBREVIATION OF FIGURE 7 TO THE STRUCTURE
PRESENTED IN FIGURE 8a

[186]
dimensions of aspiration is reflected in the path coefficients

leading to F and G, the differential values of the nonrecursive
path coefficients between F and G, and the differential external
validity of the prediction of F and G. Judging from Table 7, the
structure is adequate to explain educational aspirations but not
to explain occupational aspirations. 10
COMMENTS
The recent advances made by Joreskog and his colleagues in

solving problems of estimation in structural models have made
available to social theorists an awesome array of potential
approaches to the analysis of a set of data. Concomitant with
Joreskog’s advances, however, come problems in applying the
models of analysis which are nearly equal to the complexity of
the models themselves. Structural parameters for complex
models can indeed be estimated. The interpretation of those
parameters in the interest of constructing theory and, of equal
or greater importance, in the interest of communicating
research results to other social scientists, are problems which
deserve careful consideration (e.g., the misinterpretation of the
theoretical structure in Werts, et al., 1973: Figure 7).
Path analysis, in the past, has been useful to sociologists due
to its ability to quickly communicate a theoretical structure to
the reader. With recent advances made in confirmatory analyses
of covariance structures, however, it becomes possible for
different types of structural coefficients to be presented in a
single path diagram (e.g., path coefficients and epistemic
correlations), and for different types of unobserved variables to
be presented in path diagrams which are identical (e.g., and
interbattery factor model, a single factor confirmatory factor
model, and a canonical factor model; Burt, 1973b). This
development will affect the theorist in that he must give greater
attention to the interpretability of his proposed structure than
was previously the case.
The interpretability problem can be approached from two

[187]
distinct perspectives. On the one hand, the theorist can assume

that his theoretical background is adequate to specify a
theoretical structure which is a complete system. Thus, the
theorist immediately proposes an abbreviated theoretical struc-
ture. The focus of interest is on how the observed variables fit
the structure. On the other hand, the theorist can explore the
possibility of a theoretical structure explaining the observed
variables he is considering by answering the four questions
discussed in the third section. Thus, the theorist specifies a
range of alternative structures in comparison to the complete
structure. The focus of interest is on how the structure fits the
observed variables. Since this paper has been concerned with the
theory construction process, the second approach has been
emphasized.
NOTES
1. In general, the model being considered does not postulate correlations among
the residual variables, and Θ is a diagonal matrix. At the theorist’s discretion, the
off-diagonals of Φ can be used to estimate correlations between residual variables
explicitly allowed to covary (Werts et al., 1971; or Werts, et al., 1973).
2. Joreskog’s computer routine for equations 3 and 4 outputs both least-squares
and maximum-likelihood estimates of the flexible parameters (ACOVSF). LISREL,
however, only outputs maximum-likelihood estimates. Maximum-likelihood estimates
are desirable for several reasons: they are scale free, there is a general test statistic
readily available, they are optimally efficient estimates over variable sample sizes
(e.g., Pruzek and Pfeiffer, 1973), and they are robust over nonnormality (e.g., Howe,
1955).
3. An alternative algorithm to the Fletcher-Powell algorithm is the Newton-
Raphson algorithm. For a comparison of the two approaches see Clarke (1970). For
an example application of the Newton-Raphson algorithm to the first-order
confirmatory factor analytic model, see Burt (1973a: section 4).

4. Equation 8 was derived for regression coefficients based solely on observed
variables. In structural models based on the factor analytic model of analysis, while
regression coefficients among the unobserved variables will be computationally
identical to those among observed variables, the correlations or covariances
underlying the regression coefficients will usually be larger among the unobserved
variables than among the observed variables since the unobserved variables represent
the combined covariance of one or more observed variables. Without controlling for
the number of indicants of the relevant unobserved variables, equation 8 could tend
to accept the external validity of a proposed structure based on unobserved variables

[188]
where it would not accept the external validity of the same type of theoretical
structureinvolving only observed variables. This is an extension of the general
problem of comparing path coefficients among unobserved variables with path
coefficients among observed variables-the coefficients among the unobserved
variables will usually be larger and thus present a "nicer" looking theoretical
structure even though the observed covariances for the two structures are identical.
The alteration of k, the degrees of freedom, makes logical sense; however, until a test
statistic is formally available as a test of external validity for unobserved variables in
the confirmatory factor model, the theorist is advised not to use equation 8 as a
precise estimate of statistical significance of prediction ability. Rather, it is an
approximation.
5. One of the reviewers of the paper suggested that the likelihood ratio statistic
could be made more sensitive to changes in alternative structures by dividing the
statistic by the degrees of freedom. This procedure would increase the variability of
the statistic in terms of changes in the restrictions placed on a model; however, it
would not establish a limit on the values which the revised statistic could assume. The
theorist might want to consider dividing the value of the X 2statistic into the degrees
of freedom, on the other hand. Then, in most situations-although by no means
all-the revised statistic would vary between zero and one. This discussion clearly
demonstrates the arbitrarity of qualitative statistics. Since the Tucker and Lewis
reliability coefficient has been introduced formally in the psychometric hterature, I
have restricted my use of qualitative statistics to the two introduced in this section of
the text.
6. The reliability coefficient was developed by Tucker and Lewis (1973) for
unrestricted maximum-likelihood factor analysis. With confirmatory models, smce
dfq will be the number of ovendentifying degrees of freedom rather than the number
of underidentifying degrees of freedom as with the unrestricted model, the reliability
coefficient can slightly exceed positive one, as is demonstrated in Tables 2b and 3. It
should exceed positive one only when the fit of a model to a set of data is extremely
good and will only exceed positive one by a small margin.
7. Equal contributions from indicants are to be expected in a two-indicant,
single-unobserved-variable model if the parameters are estimated by a variant of the
factor analytic model of analysis. The logic of the discussion in this section of the
text holds for unobserved variables indicated by any number of empirical variables.
8. Notice that the estimates in B will be the negative values of the actual values
of the path coefficients. Thus, if is negative, the path coefficient leading from j to
ij
β
i is positive.
9. It should be noted that the object of this section of discussion is not to
construct a comprehensive theory of the causal structure leading to the formation of
aspirations, but rather to illustrate the process of constructing such a theory via the
confirmatory factor analytic model. As a consequence, I have only taken sufficient
variables from Hauser (1969) to illustrate my points and specify an adequate causal
structure, (judging from past theorizing), while keeping the model simple enough so
as not to confuse the present emphasis on illustration. Figure 5 is actually a
component within the structures considered by Hauser, Haller, Ohlendorf, Portes,

and Sewell. Individuals interested in the substantive reasoning leading to the structure
specified in Figure 5 are referred to the original articles listed in the text.
10. This differential prediction of aspirations could be due to the fact that
perception of the expectations of significant others (concept D) was operationalized

[189]
by perception of father’s educational expectations. If an observed variable of both

educational expectations and occupational expectations had been used to indicate
concept D, perhaps the differential prediction of the indicants of aspirations would
disappear.
REFERENCES
BECKER, M. (1970) "Sociometric location and innovativeness: reformulation and

extension of the diffusion model." Amer. Soc. Rev. 35: 267-282.
BLALOCK, H. M. (1963) "Correlated independent variables: the problem of
multicollinearity." Amer. J. of Sociology 42: 233-237.
BOUDON, R. (1965) "A method of linear causal analysis: dependence analysis."
Amer. Soc. Riv. 30: 365-374.
BURT, R. S. (1973a) The Theory Construction Potential of Path Analysis: an
Interdisciplinary Perspective. SUNY at Albany, Department of Sociology,
International Center for Social Research Monograph 2.
(1973b) "Thoughts on the interpretation of unobserved variables in structural
———
models." Presented in a methodology section of the annual meetings of the

American Sociological Association.
———
of social integration on participation in the

(1973c) "The differential impact
diffusion of innovations." Social Sci. Research 2: 125-144.
CLARKE, M.R.B. (1970) "A rapidly convergent method of maximum-likelihood
factor analysis." British J. of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 23: 43-52.
DARLINGTON, R. (1968) "Multiple regression in psychological research and
practice." Psych. Bull. 69: 161-182.
DUNCAN, O. D. (1966) "Path analysis: sociological examples." Amer. J. of
Sociology 72: 1-16.
FINNEY, F. M. (1972) "Indirect effects in path analysis." Soc. Methods and
Research 1: 175-186.
GEBHARDT, F. (1971) "Maximum-likelihood solution to factor analysis when some
factors are completely specified." Psychometrika 36: 155-163.
GOLDBERGER, A. (1964) Econometric Theory. New York: John Wiley.
HAUSER, R. M. (1972) "Disaggregating a social-psychological model of educational
attainment." Social Sci. Research 1: 159-188.
---
(1969) "Schools in the stratification process." Amer. J. of Sociology 74:

587-611.
and A. GOLDBERGER (1971) "The treatment of unobserved variables in path
———
analysis," pp. 81-117 in H. L. Costner (ed.) Sociological Methodology 1971. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
HEISE, D. R. (1969) "Problems in path analysis and causal inference," pp. 38-73 in
E. G. Borgatta (ed.) Sociological Methodology 1969. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
HOWE, W. G. (1955) "Some contributions to factor analysis." Oak Ridge, Tenn.:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ONRL-1919.
JORESKOG, K. G. (1973) "A general method for estimating a linear structural
equation system," in A. S. Goldberger and O. D. Duncan (eds.) Structural
Equation Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Seminar.

[ 190]
———
(1971) "Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests." Psychometrika 36:

109-133.
(1970) "A general method for analysis of covariance structures." Biometrika
———
57: 239-251.
(1969) "A general approach to confirmatory maximum-likelihood factor
———
analysis." Psychometrika 34: 183-202.

(1967) "Some contributions to maximum-likelihood factor analysis." Psycho-
———
metrika 32: 443-482.

(1966) "Testing a simple structure hypothesis in factor analysis." Psycho-
———
metrika 31: 165-178.

and A. GOLDBERGER (1972) "Factor analysis by generalized least squares."
———
Psychometrika 37: 243-260.

JORESKOG, K. G. and D. N. LAWLEY (1968) "New methods in miximum-likeli-
hood factor analysis." British J. of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 21:
85-96.
JORESKOG, K. G. and M. VAN THILLO (1972) "LISREL, A general computer
program for estimating a linear structural equation system involving multiple
indicators of unmeasured variables." Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service
Reasearch Bulletin RB-72-56.
LAND, K. C. (1969) "Principles of path analysis," pp. 3-37 in E. G. Borgatta (ed.)
Sociological Methodology 1969. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
LAWLEY, D. N. and A. E. MAXWELL (1972) Factor Analysis as a Statistical
Method. London: Butterworth.
McGAW, B. and K. G. JORESKOG (1971) "Factorial invariance of ability measures
in groups differing in intelligence and socioeconomic status." British J. of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 24: 154-168.
MULAIK, S. A. (1972) Foundations of Factor Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
(1971) "A note on some equations of confirmatory factor analysis."
———
Psychometrika 36: 63-70.

PRUZEK, R. M. and R. A. PFEIFFER (1973) "Small sample generalizability of
certain factor analytic results." Presented at the annual meeting of the
Psychometric Society.
SEWELL, W. H., A. O. HALLER, and G. W. OHLENDORF (1970) "The educational
and early occupational status attainment process: revisions and replications."
Amer. Soc. Rev. 35: 1014-1027.
SEWELL, W. H., A. O. HALLER, and A. PORTES (1969) "The educational and
early occupational attainment process." Amer. Soc. Rev. 34: 82-92.
TUCKER, L. R. and C. LEWIS (1973) "A reliability coefficient for maximum-likeli-
hood factor analysis." Psychometrika 38: 1-10.
VAN DE GEER, J. P. (1971) Introduction to Multivariate Analysis for the Social
Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
WERTS, C. E., K. G. JORESKOG, and R. LINN (1973) "Identification and
estimation in path analysis with unmeasured variables." Amer. J. of Sociology 78:
1469-1484.
WERTS, C. E., R. LINN, and K. G. JORESKOG (1971) "Estimating the parameters
of path models involving unmeasured variables," pp. 400-409 in H. Blalock (ed.)
Causal Models in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
WRIGHT, S. (1960) "Path coefficients and path regressions: alternative or
complementary concepts?" Biometrics 16: 189-202.

Burt, R. S. (1973) - Confirmatory Factor-Analytic Structures and The Theory Construction Process.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Burt, R. S. (1973) - Confirmatory Factor-Analytic Structures and The Theory Construction Process.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The confirmatory factor-analytic model of analysis is discussed in terms of the

general process of constructing social theory-the generation of parameter

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR-ANALYTIC STRUCTURES

n a article establishing, in sociology, the

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

a larger audience than the small core of sociologists currently

Finally, the sixth section outlines the application of the

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

THE MODEL OF ANALYSIS

Figure 1 presents interpretations of the same set of data.

exogenous unobserved variables will refer to those unobserved

where x refers to the number of indicants of the exogenous

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

residual path coefficient leading to observed variable Xi, wi is a

(1) for the correlations among the indicants of an unobserved variable,

(2) for the correlations between the indicants of different unobserved

(3) for the correlations of indicants with themselves,

Using the estimation equations, the original correlation matrix

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

or, in terms of the estimation equations given above:

The matrix of predicted correlations (or alternatively of

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

The summary equation given in equation 3 is the general

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

first-order factor model-it involves a single application of the

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

Following the logic of the separation of structural equations

( 1 ) RX X an (x by x) matrix of the correlations of the indicants

where m equals the number of endogenous unobserved variables

where yg is used to reference causal path coefficients rather

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

comparability with Joreskog (1973). Two path estimation

which can be combined into matrices following the notation of

so that the path coefficients among the unobserved variables

can represented in the notation of equation 5a as

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

which, borrowing from equation 5b, equals

Since no proposed theoretical structure will actually be able to

where ’¥2 is the variance-covariance matrix of the residual path

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

Drawing on equations 5a, 5d,and 5e, a confirmatory factor

or, in terms of the parameter matrices:

Equation 6 is the most flexible model introduced to the

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

Following Joreskog (1973, 1970, 1969, 1967, 1966) and

where all the matrix symbols have been introduced previously,

THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ADEQUACY

The use of unobserved variables in structural models based on

(1) the explicit representation of the operationalization of the theoret-

The emphasis of the first function of unobserved variables in

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

theoretical concepts unidimensional or will more than one

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

is able to reconstruct or predict theoretically endogenous

specify different causal structures (a more detailed discussion of

structure will have to take into account the path-analytic

coefficient (Darlington, 1968), a statistic of external validity

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

able to completely predict the variation in a particular

will be distributed as a chi-square statistic with k degrees of

Downloaded from smr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 16, 2015

inadequate, but also wishes to know where the structure is