ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Cause for concern: Omitted cross-loadings in measurement models of nonlinear structural equation models.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial: introduction to the special issue "methodological challenges of complex latent mediator and moderator models".Behavior research methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cross-loadings on non-target factors in measurement models of linear structural equation models (SEM) are often observed in empirical research but frequently disregarded. Previous research on linear SEM has already shown that omitted positive cross-loadings result in overestimated covariances of the latent predictor variables and distorted linear effects. For nonlinear SEM with interaction and quadratic effects, omitting cross-loadings has not been investigated. This study examines the consequences of omitted cross-loadings in both linear and nonlinear SEM using a single empirical dataset and a small simulation study. We focus on the bias patterns that emerge when cross-loadings-reflecting the multidimensionality of items-are either positive or negative and assess how these biases vary with the level of the latent predictor covariance. The empirical analysis reveals that constraining theoretically justified cross-loadings to zero results in systematic over- and underestimation of factor loadings and structural parameters, with more pronounced effects in the nonlinear component of the model, thereby altering the functional form of the relationships between the latent variables. The simulation study further illustrates that the direction and magnitude of bias in both linear and nonlinear SEM depend jointly on the sign of the cross-loadings and the level of the latent predictor covariance. These findings underscore the critical importance of incorporating cross-loadings only theory-driven to maintain an accurate representation of the functional relationships between latent constructs. Practical implications and challenges of including cross-loadings in the model are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41168605What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.