Estimation of Path Coefficient Parameter Based on The Best RMSEA Value in Structural Equation Modeling Weighted Least Square

Authors

  • Justin Eduardo Simarmata
  • Ferdinandus Mone Universitas Timor
  • Debora Chrisinta Universitas Timor
  • Miko Purnomo Universitas Timor
  • Alejandro Jr. V. Matute Department of Information Technology, Laguna State Polytechnic University, Philippines

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32938/jpm.v7i2.10324

Keywords:

Parameter Estimation; WLS; ML; SEM; RMSEA.

Abstract

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is a statistical approach widely used to analyze causal relationships between latent and observed variables. A key issue in SEM lies in selecting an appropriate parameter estimation method, as it strongly affects the accuracy and interpretation of results. Among the most common estimation techniques are Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Weighted Least Squares (WLS). This study aims to compare the performance of ML and WLS in estimating path coefficients within SEM analysis. Using simulated data generated with the simulateData() function from a predefined structural model, three scenarios are examined with sample sizes of 500 and 1000. Data transformation procedures are applied to ensure consistency before model testing. Each SEM model is then estimated using both ML and WLS, and the results are evaluated through Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values obtained from 100 replications. Findings indicate that WLS generally outperforms ML in terms of model fit and stability. In the first scenario with a sample size of 500, WLS achieves a lower average RMSEA (0.0141) compared to ML (0.0172). With a sample size of 1000 in the second scenario, both methods produce similar RMSEA values (0.009 for WLS and 0.0096 for ML), though WLS demonstrates lower variability. In the third scenario, also with a sample size of 1000, WLS records an average RMSEA of 0.0074 versus 0.0092 for ML. Overall, the results suggest that WLS is more effective and reliable than ML in providing accurate parameter estimates across different data conditions and sample sizes.

References

Aghaei, S., Shahbazi, Y., Pirbabaei, M., & Beyti, H. (2023). A hybrid SEM-neural network method for modeling the academic satisfaction factors of architecture students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4(100122). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100122

Ardi, N. (2020). Structural Equation Modelling-Partial Least Square to Determine the Correlation of Factors Affecting Poverty in Indonesian Provinces. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 846, No. 1, p. 012054) . https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/846/1/012054.

Bakk, Z., & Kuha, J. (2021). Relating latent class membership to external variables: An overview. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 74(2), 340–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12227.

Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2009). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2

Chauhan, D., & Yadav, A. (2024). JawaAn archive-based self-adaptive artificial electric field algorithm with orthogonal initialization for real-parameter optimization problems. Applied Soft Computing, 150(111109). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.111109

Dany, R. (2017). Perbandingan Pendugaan Parameter Berbasis OLS (Ordinary Least Square) dan WLS (Weighted Least Square) Pada Analisis Path [Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Brawijaya]. https://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/8711/

Finch H. (2024). A Comparison of Methods for Synthesizing Results from Previous Research to Obtain Priors for Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling. Psych., 6(1), 45–88. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych6010004

Fonseca, J., & Bacao, F. (n.d.). Tabular and latent space synthetic data generation: a literature review. J Big Data, 10(115). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-023-00792-7

Grønneberg, S., Foldnes, N., & Marcoulides, K. M. (2022). covsim: An R Package for Simulating Non-Normal Data for Structural Equation Models Using Copulas. Journal of Statistical Software, 102(3), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v102.i03

Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). An introduction to structural equation modeling. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook. Springer International Publishing.

Hayes, T. (2021). R-squared change in structural equation models with latent variables and missing data. Behavior Research Methods, 53(5), 2127–2157. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01532-y.

Khairi, M. I., Susanti, D., & Sukono, S. (2021). Study on Structural Equation Modeling for Analyzing Data. International Journal of Ethno-Sciences and Education Research, 1(3), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.46336/ijeer.v1i3.295.

Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. In BMC Public Health (Issue 1093). Guilford publications.

Kong, X., Jiang, X., Zhang, B., Yuan, J., & Ge, Z. (2022). Latent variable models in the era of industrial big data: Extension and beyond. Annual Reviews in Control, 54, 167–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2022.09.005

Lai, K., & Green, S. B. (2016). The problem with having two watches: Assessment of fit when RMSEA and CFI disagree. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(2–3), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1134306

Pho, K. H. (2022). Improvements of the Newton–Raphson method. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 408(114106). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2022.114106

Pratiwi, I., Yanuar, F., & Yozza, H. (2020). Pendugaan Parameter MIU Dari Distribusi Log-Normal Dengan Menggunakan Metode Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) dan Metode Bayes. Jurnal Matematika UNAND , 9(2), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.25077/jmu.9.2.84-92.2020

Rožman, M., Tominc, P., & Milfelner, B. (2020). A Comparative Study Using Two SEM Techniques on Different Samples Sizes for Determining Factors of Older Employee’s Motivation and Satisfaction. Sustainability, 12(6), 2189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062189

Schweizer, K., DiStefano, C., & French, B. (2023). A maximum likelihood approach for asymmetric non-normal data using a transformational measurement model. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1095769.). https://doi.org/10.3389/fams.2023.1095769

Simarmata, J. E., Mone, F., & Chrisinta, D. (2024). Structural Equation Modeling: The Influence of School Environment on Students’ Interest in Selecting State University. JTAM (Jurnal Teori Dan Aplikasi Matematika), 8(2), 378–389. https://doi.org/10.31764/jtam.v8i2.19921

Surianti, H. (2021). Estimasi Parameter Model Regresi Linier dengan Pendekatan Metode Bayesian. Journal of Mathematics: Theory and Applications, 3(2), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.31605/jomta.v3i2.1364.

Van der Loo, M. P. (2012). Learning RStudio for R Statistical Computing. In Ecotrophic (Issue 2). Packt Publishing Ltd.

Wang, Q., & Cai, X. (2024). Active-learning class activities and shiny applications for teaching support vector classifiers. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 32(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2023.2231065

Yu, X. (2025). A method for evaluating the learning effectiveness of MOOC English online education based on fuzzy clustering decision tree. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 35(1–2), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCEELL.2025.143798

Downloads

Published

2026-01-31