Assumptions and Comparative Strengths of the Two-Step Approach

James C. Anderson and David W. Gerbing
Additional contact information
James C. Anderson: Northwestern University
David W. Gerbing: Portland State University

Sociological Methods & Research, 1992, vol. 20, issue 3, 321-333

Abstract: Fornell and Yi (1992 [this issue]) have discussed four assumptions that they contend underlie two-step approaches to structural equation modeling. Each of these assumptions is demonstrated to not be an assumption of the two-step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In doing so, an attempt is made to provide some clarification and guidance to researchers interested in employing structural equation modeling to test and develop theory. Given the comparative strengths of the two-step approach over a one-step approach in practice, it is concluded that the preferred approach to the modeling task is the two-step approach of Anderson and Gerbing (1988).

Date: 1992
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124192020003002 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:somere:v:20:y:1992:i:3:p:321-333

DOI: 10.1177/0049124192020003002

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Sociological Methods & Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().