Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling: a Streamlined Step by Step Approach Using the R Project Software

Overview

Journal BMC Psychiatry

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2023 Jul 28

PMID 37507658

Authors

Maria Prokofieva

Daniel Zarate

Alex Parker

Olympia Palikara

Vasileios Stavropoulos

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) has been a popular yet limited approach to assessing latent factor structures. Despite items rarely loading exclusively on one latent factor in multifactorial scales, CFA assumes all indicators/items should load uniquely on their allocated latent dimensions. To address this weakness, Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) combines exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and CFA procedures, allowing cross-loadings to occur when assessing hypothesized models. Although such advantages have enhanced ESEM popularity, its adoption is often limited by software rigidity and complex coding difficulties. To address these obstacles, the current tutorial presents a streamlined, step-by-step approach using the open-source software R while providing both R and Mplus ESEM syntax. The tutorial demonstrates the sequence of the ESEM stages by examining the frequently debated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) factor structure, using openly accessible data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). As ESEM may allow a better understanding of the complex associations in multidimensional scales, this tutorial may optimize the epidemiological and clinical assessment of common yet multifaceted psychiatric presentations.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the psychometric properties of the 24-item and 12-item real relationship inventory-client forms.

Stefana A, Fusar-Poli P, Vieta E, Youngstrom E PLoS One. 2025; 20(3):e0311411.

PMID: 40029924 PMC: 11875345. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311411.

Psychological, psychiatric, and behavioral sciences measurement scales: best practice guidelines for their development and validation.

Stefana A, Damiani S, Granziol U, Provenzani U, Solmi M, Youngstrom E Front Psychol. 2025; 15:1494261.

PMID: 39916786 PMC: 11798685. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1494261.

How Argentinian Consumers Perceive the Safety of Irradiated Foods.

Rusin T, Villavicencio A, Araujo W, Faiad C Foods. 2024; 13(23).

PMID: 39682962 PMC: 11640005. DOI: 10.3390/foods13233891.

Validation and adaptation of the moral outrage scale in the Peruvian adult population.

Ramos-Vera C, Casa-Chicata M, Portilla-Yacolca Z, Puma-Maque C, Calizaya-Milla Y, Saintila J BMC Psychol. 2024; 12(1):707.

PMID: 39614374 PMC: 11606302. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-024-02203-9.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the self-care of informal caregivers inventory.

Dorri N, Riegel B Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2024; 7:100237.

PMID: 39328836 PMC: 11426053. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100237.

References

Zarate D, Fullwood L, Prokofieva M, Griffiths M, Stavropoulos V . Problematic Shopping Behavior: An Item Response Theory Examination of the Seven-Item Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2022; :1-19. PMC: 9208247. DOI: 10.1007/s11469-022-00844-8. View

Jobst L, Bader M, Moshagen M . A tutorial on assessing statistical power and determining sample size for structural equation models. Psychol Methods. 2021; 28(1):207-221. DOI: 10.1037/met0000423. View

Black L, Mansfield R, Panayiotou M . Age Appropriateness of the Self-Report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Assessment. 2020; 28(6):1556-1569. DOI: 10.1177/1073191120903382. View

Hafekost J, Lawrence D, Boterhoven de Haan K, Johnson S, Saw S, Buckingham W . Methodology of Young Minds Matter: The second Australian Child and Adolescent Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015; 50(9):866-75. DOI: 10.1177/0004867415622270. View

Ortuno-Sierra J, Chocarro E, Fonseca-Pedrero E, Riba S, Muniz J . The assessment of emotional and Behavioural problems: Internal structure of The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2018; 15(3):265-273. PMC: 6225034. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.05.005. View

van Zyl L, Ten Klooster P . Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling: Practical Guidelines and Tutorial With a Convenient Online Tool for Mplus. Front Psychiatry. 2022; 12:795672. PMC: 8779472. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.795672. View

Gomez R, Stavropoulos V . Parent Ratings of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: What Is the Optimum Factor Model?. Assessment. 2017; 26(6):1142-1153. DOI: 10.1177/1073191117721743. View

Marsh H, Morin A, Parker P, Kaur G . Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013; 10:85-110. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700. View

Gomez R, Stavropoulos V, Zarate D, Griffiths M . ADHD symptoms, the current symptom scale, and exploratory structural equation modeling: A psychometric study. Res Dev Disabil. 2021; 111:103850. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103850. View

10.

Stavropoulos V, Monger K, Zarate D, Prokofieva M, Schivinski B . Online Gambling Disorder Questionnaire (OGD-Q): An item r'esponse theory examination. Addict Behav Rep. 2022; 16:100449. PMC: 9399468. DOI: 10.1016/j.abrep.2022.100449. View

11.

Marsh H, Guo J, Dicke T, Parker P, Craven R . Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and Set-ESEM: Optimal Balance Between Goodness of Fit and Parsimony. Multivariate Behav Res. 2019; 55(1):102-119. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2019.1602503. View

12.

Gomez R, Brown T, Watson S, Stavropoulos V . Confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling of the factor structure of the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE). PLoS One. 2022; 17(2):e0261914. PMC: 8820594. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261914. View

13.

Garrido L, Barrada J, Aguasvivas J, Martinez-Molina A, Arias V, Golino H . Is Small Still Beautiful for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire? Novel Findings Using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Assessment. 2018; 27(6):1349-1367. DOI: 10.1177/1073191118780461. View

14.

Wolpert M, Cheng H, Deighton J . Measurement Issues: Review of four patient reported outcome measures: SDQ, RCADS, C/ORS and GBO - their strengths and limitations for clinical use and service evaluation. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2020; 20(1):63-70. DOI: 10.1111/camh.12065. View

15.

Goodman R . Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001; 40(11):1337-45. DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015. View

16.

Ribeiro Santiago P, Manzini D, Haag D, Roberts R, Smithers L, Jamieson L . Exploratory Graph Analysis of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Assessment. 2021; 29(8):1622-1640. DOI: 10.1177/10731911211024338. View

17.

Gomez R, Motti-Stefanidi F, Jordan S, Stavropoulos V . Greek Validation of the Factor Structure and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Self Report (SDQ-SR): Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2020; 52(5):880-890. DOI: 10.1007/s10578-020-01065-7. View

18.

Widaman K, Revelle W . Thinking thrice about sum scores, and then some more about measurement and analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2022; 55(2):788-806. PMC: 10027776. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01849-w. View

19.

Bentley N, Bucci S, Hartley S . Measuring outcomes within inpatient child and adolescent mental health services: an evaluation of the Recovery Questionnaire for Young People. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2020; 24(4):329-337. DOI: 10.1111/camh.12337. View