Do weights and complex design matter in structural equation modeling for social studies? : an example of the political satisfaction-political trust model

2025
journal article
article
dc.abstract.enThe analyses applying complex design and weighting techniques in Structural Equation Modeling, which encompass both theoretical considerations, practical limitations and possibilities within available statistical software, still appear to be limited - despite the topic not being new. Using the European Social Survey (ESS) and Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) on political satisfaction and political trust, the estimation consequences of four complex sample analysis scenarios are demonstrated. These include a naïve approach and those adjusted with sampling weights and design variables using two software packages: Mplus8.4 and Stata18. Based on the literature review, only a few studies have included detailed information about the weighting approach in the analyses performed. The absence of this information could affect the accuracy of results and the replication of estimations, as shown in this paper. Empirically, it is demonstrated that assuming a simple random sample in MGCFA can result in divergent coefficients, biased estimates of latent covariances and mean differences, and underestimated standard errors. These in turn affect confidence intervals, goodness-of-fit indices, composite reliability, and convergent validity metrics, potentially undermining the validity of the research design and results, the reliability of inferences, and the comparability of outcomes across countries. Additionally, it was illustrated how results vary when using different software packages under similar estimation settings. In conclusion, there is an urgent need for all researchers who apply complex sample analysis in their work, using weights and design variables, to clearly present their applied approach to analyses, depending on the software used.
dc.affiliationWydział Filozoficzny : Instytut Socjologii
dc.contributor.authorPoteralska, Magdalena
dc.contributor.authorPerek-Białas, Jolanta - 102245
dc.date.accessioned2025-07-24T10:42:54Z
dc.date.available2025-07-24T10:42:54Z
dc.date.createdat2025-06-16T09:03:35Zen
dc.date.issued2025
dc.date.openaccess0
dc.description.abstractThe analyses applying complex design and weighting techniques in Structural Equation Modeling, which encompass both theoretical considerations, practical limitations and possibilities within available statistical software, still appear to be limited — despite the topic not being new. Using the European Social Survey (ESS) and Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) on political satisfaction and political trust, the estimation consequences of four complex sample analysis scenarios are demonstrated. These include a naïve approach and those adjusted with sampling weights and design variables using two software packages: Mplus8.4 and Stata18. Based on the literature review, only a few studies have included detailed information about the weighting approach in the analyses performed. The absence of this information could affect the accuracy of results and the replication of estimations, as shown in this paper. Empirically, it is demonstrated that assuming a simple random sample in MGCFA can result in divergent coefficients, biased estimates of latent covariances and mean differences, and underestimated standard errors. These in turn affect confidence intervals, goodness-of-fit indices, composite reliability, and convergent validity metrics, potentially undermining the validity of the research design and results, the reliability of inferences, and the comparability of outcomes across countries. Additionally, it was illustrated how results vary when using different software packages under similar estimation settings. In conclusion, there is an urgent need for all researchers who apply complex sample analysis in their work, using weights and design variables, to clearly present their applied approach to analyses, depending on the software used.
dc.description.accesstimew momencie opublikowania
dc.description.additionalOnline First 2025-06-16. Bibliogr. s. [27-31]
dc.description.physical[1-31]
dc.description.versionostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11205-025-03618-6
dc.identifier.eissn1573-0921
dc.identifier.issn0303-8300
dc.identifier.urihttps://ruj.uj.edu.pl/handle/item/558161
dc.languageeng
dc.language.containereng
dc.rightsDodaję tylko opis bibliograficzny
dc.rights.licenceCC-BY-NC-ND
dc.share.typeotwarte czasopismo
dc.subject.encomplex design
dc.subject.enEuropean Social Survey
dc.subject.enpolitical satisfaction
dc.subject.enpolitical trust
dc.subject.enstructural equation modeling
dc.subject.enweighting
dc.subtypeArticle
dc.titleDo weights and complex design matter in structural equation modeling for social studies? : an example of the political satisfaction-political trust model
dc.title.journalSocial Indicators Research
dc.typeJournalArticle
dspace.entity.typePublicationen
dc.abstract.en
The analyses applying complex design and weighting techniques in Structural Equation Modeling, which encompass both theoretical considerations, practical limitations and possibilities within available statistical software, still appear to be limited - despite the topic not being new. Using the European Social Survey (ESS) and Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) on political satisfaction and political trust, the estimation consequences of four complex sample analysis scenarios are demonstrated. These include a naïve approach and those adjusted with sampling weights and design variables using two software packages: Mplus8.4 and Stata18. Based on the literature review, only a few studies have included detailed information about the weighting approach in the analyses performed. The absence of this information could affect the accuracy of results and the replication of estimations, as shown in this paper. Empirically, it is demonstrated that assuming a simple random sample in MGCFA can result in divergent coefficients, biased estimates of latent covariances and mean differences, and underestimated standard errors. These in turn affect confidence intervals, goodness-of-fit indices, composite reliability, and convergent validity metrics, potentially undermining the validity of the research design and results, the reliability of inferences, and the comparability of outcomes across countries. Additionally, it was illustrated how results vary when using different software packages under similar estimation settings. In conclusion, there is an urgent need for all researchers who apply complex sample analysis in their work, using weights and design variables, to clearly present their applied approach to analyses, depending on the software used.
dc.affiliation
Wydział Filozoficzny : Instytut Socjologii
dc.contributor.author
Poteralska, Magdalena
dc.contributor.author
Perek-Białas, Jolanta - 102245
dc.date.accessioned
2025-07-24T10:42:54Z
dc.date.available
2025-07-24T10:42:54Z
dc.date.createdaten
2025-06-16T09:03:35Z
dc.date.issued
2025
dc.date.openaccess
0
dc.description.abstract
The analyses applying complex design and weighting techniques in Structural Equation Modeling, which encompass both theoretical considerations, practical limitations and possibilities within available statistical software, still appear to be limited — despite the topic not being new. Using the European Social Survey (ESS) and Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) on political satisfaction and political trust, the estimation consequences of four complex sample analysis scenarios are demonstrated. These include a naïve approach and those adjusted with sampling weights and design variables using two software packages: Mplus8.4 and Stata18. Based on the literature review, only a few studies have included detailed information about the weighting approach in the analyses performed. The absence of this information could affect the accuracy of results and the replication of estimations, as shown in this paper. Empirically, it is demonstrated that assuming a simple random sample in MGCFA can result in divergent coefficients, biased estimates of latent covariances and mean differences, and underestimated standard errors. These in turn affect confidence intervals, goodness-of-fit indices, composite reliability, and convergent validity metrics, potentially undermining the validity of the research design and results, the reliability of inferences, and the comparability of outcomes across countries. Additionally, it was illustrated how results vary when using different software packages under similar estimation settings. In conclusion, there is an urgent need for all researchers who apply complex sample analysis in their work, using weights and design variables, to clearly present their applied approach to analyses, depending on the software used.
dc.description.accesstime
w momencie opublikowania
dc.description.additional
Online First 2025-06-16. Bibliogr. s. [27-31]
dc.description.physical
[1-31]
dc.description.version
ostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.identifier.doi
10.1007/s11205-025-03618-6
dc.identifier.eissn
1573-0921
dc.identifier.issn
0303-8300
dc.identifier.uri
https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/handle/item/558161
dc.language
eng
dc.language.container
eng
dc.rights
Dodaję tylko opis bibliograficzny
dc.rights.licence
CC-BY-NC-ND
dc.share.type
otwarte czasopismo
dc.subject.en
complex design
dc.subject.en
European Social Survey
dc.subject.en
political satisfaction
dc.subject.en
political trust
dc.subject.en
structural equation modeling
dc.subject.en
weighting
dc.subtype
Article
dc.title
Do weights and complex design matter in structural equation modeling for social studies? : an example of the political satisfaction-political trust model
dc.title.journal
Social Indicators Research
dc.type
JournalArticle
dspace.entity.typeen
Publication
Affiliations

* The migration of download and view statistics prior to the date of April 8, 2024 is in progress.

Views
12
Views per month
Views per city
Dublin
1
Warsaw
1
Downloads
10.1007_s11205-025-03618-6-citation.ris
1

No access

No Thumbnail Available