Skip to content

sem package and AMOS

3 messages · John Fox, Anthony Dick

#
Hello-

I am using R to build my initial models, but need to use AMOS to compare 
the models of two groups (adults vs. kids). The problem is I am getting 
different results with R and AMOS for the initial models of the separate 
groups (and the R results make more sense).

The parameter estimates (path coefficients and variances) from both 
programs are nearly identical, but the model chi-squares (and 
significance estimates of the parameter estimates) are different. I am 
using Maximum Likelihood in AMOS. R I think defaults to two-stage-least 
squares estimate, and AMOS 16 does not implement 2SLS.

I am using fMRI data, so the error variances are likely correlated, and 
the data non-normal to varying degrees. Is 2SLS the better way to go for 
these kinds of data?

Is there a way to change the default method for R sem? I couldn't find 
this in the ?help. I note I have run some of the AMOS examples in R and 
have gotten identical results across platforms, so I believe the problem 
is not in specifying things incorrectly across platforms. Also, the dfs 
are identical for both analyses. I must use AMOS to do model comparison 
(and thus maximum likelihood), but would like to achieve similar results 
across platforms for the basic models before I proceed, and would like 
to track down the reason for the difference.

Thanks,

Anthony
#
Dear Anthony,

sem() does FIML estimation, not 2SLS, and so it's hard to understand
why you're getting "nearly identical" parameter estimates but very
different coefficient standard errors and model chi-squares. In fact,
unless the problem is very ill-conditioned, the parameter estimates
should be the same within rounding error, as should the model
chi-square. There is some room for small differences in the standard
errors -- sem() uses a numerical Hessian and I'm not sure what AMOS
does -- but large differences are indicative of some problem. 

I suspect that you're not fitting quite the same model in sem() and
AMOS.

I hope this helps,
 John

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:50:26 -0600
Anthony Dick <adick at uchicago.edu> wrote:
--------------------------------
John Fox, Professor
Department of Sociology
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox/
#
Hi John-

Thanks. You were right--AMOS was not reading the sample size correctly 
(i.e., I was not telling it correctly). When I corrected the problem, I 
got the same estimates. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Anthony
John Fox wrote: