Unraveling structural equation modeling: Key assumptions, model fit, and trends

  • Jack Ng Kok Wah orcid

    Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya 63100, Malaysia

Article ID: 3815
Keywords: structural equation modeling; model fit evaluation; measurement invariance; multicollinearity mitigation; latent variable analysis; endogeneity and causal inference; AI-integrated structural equation modeling; cross-disciplinary SEM applications

Abstract

Structural equation modeling (SEM) serves as a cornerstone analytical tool across disciplines, enabling robust tests of complex relationships. Yet, core assumptions, model fit, measurement invariance, missing data handling, and causal inference validity spark ongoing debates. Despite methodological progress, challenges linger in parameter estimate reliability, sensitivity to model changes, and integration with alternative approaches. This study critically synthesizes recent empirical and theoretical insights to scrutinize these assumptions. A review of contemporary studies spotlights trends like refined fit evaluation, SEM-fsQCA synergies, and machine learning incorporation. Findings expose inconsistencies in missing data treatment and model respecification, varying by discipline. Quantitative focus sharpens model fit indices, while qualitative views stress theoretical justification hurdles. Cross-disciplinary analysis (psychology, finance, education, healthcare, marketing) reveals uneven assumption adherence, questioning generalizability, especially for cross-cultural data and ordinal variables. Hybrid integrations, such as SEM with system dynamics or network analysis, boost predictive accuracy and curb violations. SEM endures as powerful but demands nuanced assumption testing for theoretical and empirical soundness. Implications urge interdisciplinary collaboration on validation. Limitations encompass publication bias and the omission of unpublished advances. Future work should probe alternative fit techniques, violation impacts, and AI-driven diagnostics, fostering reliable, replicable SEM applications.

Published
2026-01-27
How to Cite
Ng Kok Wah, J. (2026). Unraveling structural equation modeling: Key assumptions, model fit, and trends. Advances in Differential Equations and Control Processes, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.59400/adecp3815
Section
Articles

References

[1]Albort-Morant G, Berenguer E, Sanchís-Pedregosa C, et al. The Influence of Investor Experience on Investment Intensity and Risk Assumption in Crowdlending: An Empirical Study. Journal of Business. 2025; 16(1): 155–176. doi: 10.21678/jb.2025.2413

[2]Almulla MO, Alismail AM, Mahama I, et al. Resilience as a predictor of internet addictive behaviours: a study among Ghanaian and Saudi samples using structural equation modelling approach. BMC Psychology. 2025; 13(1): 77. doi: 10.1186/s40359-025-02383-y

[3]Kalamaras D, Maska L, Nasika F. A Proposed MIMIC Structural Equation Model for Assessing Factors Affecting Time to Degree—The Case of the Greek Tertiary System. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(2): 187. doi: 10.3390/educsci15020187

[4]Huan L, Hou Y, Shi J, et al. Pathway analysis of the impact of dysphagia on the prognosis of patients with stroke: Based on structural equation modeling. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN. 2025; 66: 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.12.017

[5]Goktas P, Dirsehan T. Using PLS-SEM and XAI for causal-predictive services marketing research. Journal of Services Marketing. 2025; 39(1): 53–68. doi: 10.1108/JSM-10-2023-0377

[6]Foldnes N, Moss J, Grønneberg S. Improved Goodness of Fit Procedures for Structural Equation Models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2025; 32(1): 1–13. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2024.2372028

[7]Sriutaisuk S, Liu Y, Chung S, et al. Evaluating Imputation-Based Fit Statistics in Structural Equation Modeling With Ordinal Data: The MI2S Approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2025; 85(1): 82–113. doi: 10.1177/00131644241261271

[8]Zheng BQ, Bentler PM. Enhancing Model Fit Evaluation in SEM: Practical Tips for Optimizing Chi-Square Tests. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2025; 32(1): 136–141. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2024.2354802

[9]Kock N. Methods Showcase—Using PLSF-SEM in Business Communication Research. International Journal of Business Communication. 2025; 62(1): 187–205. doi: 10.1177/23294884241233281

[10]Dehabadia MZ, Ziyaeb B, Sajadic SM. Presenting a model of technological business accelerators in communication services companies using an ISM approach and determining model fit using a structural equation modeling. International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications. 2025; 16(7): 91–106.

[11]Sterner P, de Roover K, Goretzko D. New Developments in Measurement Invariance Testing: An Overview and Comparison of EFA-Based Approaches. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2025; 32(1): 117–135. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2024.2393647

[12]Gardenia Y, Gani AG. Cybersecurity Awareness Model with Methods: Analytical Hierarchy Process and Structural Equation Model. ICST Transactions on Scalable Information Systems. 2024; 11. doi: 10.4108/eetsis.6931

[13]Shin H, Kim K, Lee SJ, et al. A Theoretical Model of Clinical Nurses' Intentions to Stay During Disasters: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Journal of Nursing Management. 2025; 2025(1): 7776477. doi: 10.1155/jonm/7776477

[14]Robbana A, Akbar MA, Mohd MAB. A structural equation modeling approach to assess the Algerian Zakat payers' acceptability and adoption of a Zakat fintech-based model proposed. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research. 2025; doi: 10.1108/JIABR-09-2024-0352

[15]Pongsophon P. Cross-cultural dynamics of self-directed learning: an SEM analysis of enrichment activities and psychological constructs. Behaviormetrika. 2025; 52(1): 25–44. doi: 10.1007/s41237-024-00240-7

[16]Kumar J, Rani G, Rani M, et al. What factors influence the individual's behavior in engaging in income tax evasion? An investigation using SEM and fsQCA. Asian Review of Accounting. 2025; 33(4): 609–628. doi: 10.1108/ARA-06-2024-0184

[17]Sheng Z, Fu J, Jeyaraj A, et al. Altruistic and egoistic behaviors on enterprise social network platforms: Analysis using PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Journal of Business Research. 2025; 186: 114939. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114939

[18]Hu J, Huang Z, Li J, et al. Real-Time Classroom Behavior Analysis for Enhanced Engineering Education: An AI-Assisted Approach. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems. 2024; 17(1): 167. doi: 10.1007/s44196-024-00572-y

[19]Díaz-Reza JR, García Alcaraz JL, Sánchez Ramírez C, et al. Achieving Strategic Goals by Continuous Improvement and Lean Manufacturing Implementation: A Structural Equation Model -System Dynamics Approach. Elsevier; 2025. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5087552

[20]Fatehpanah A, Maraghi E, Coetzer-Liversage A, et al. Modeling factors related to earthquake preparedness: A structural equation modeling approach. BMC Public Health. 2025; 25(1): 431. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-21568-z

[21]Lee W, Lu L. Good Theories Predict: Unveiling the Untapped Potential of "Necessity" Theorizing. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 2025; 49(2): 219–234. doi: 10.1177/10963480231188666

[22]Mucha L, Oravecz T. Assumptions and perceptions of food wasting behavior and intention to reduce food waste in the case of Generation Y and Generation X. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15(1): 2991. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-86252-z

[23]Nielsen SR, Wright AGC. The Structure of Identity Dysfunction in Self-Report Measures. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2025; 107(1): 12–27. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2024.2362982

[24]Pollino MA. Critical Interpersonal and Family Communication Pedagogy. In: Critical Interpersonal and Family Communication Pedagogy. Routledge; 2025. pp. 77–90. doi: 10.4324/9781003381068-7

[25]Zhang H, Zhang J, Song H, et al. Effects of freshwater replenishment on the Fenneropenaeus indicus CPUE along the west coast of Madagascar based on structural equation modeling. Regional Studies in Marine Science. 2025; 81: 103937. doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2024.103937

[26]Younas M, Dong Y, Zhao G, et al. Unveiling Digital Transformation and Teaching Prowess in English Education During COVID ‐19 With Structural Equation Modelling. European Journal of Education. 2025; 60(1): e12818. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12818

[27]Xu X, Jia Q, Tayyab SMU. Exploring the dual routes in influencing sales and adoption in augmented reality retailing: a mixed approach of SEM and FsQCA. Internet Research. 2025; 35(1): 178–210. doi: 10.1108/INTR-06-2023-0438

[28]Nandipati M, Fatoki O, Desai S. Bridging Nanomanufacturing and Artificial Intelligence—A Comprehensive Review. Materials. 2024; 17(7): 1621. doi: 10.3390/ma17071621

[29]Wang T, Yang X, Zhu H. ViNAS-Pro: Online nanotoxicity data, modeling, and predictions. In: Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Toxicology and Environmental Health. Elsevier; 2026. pp. 233–244. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-30010-3.00011-8

[30]Xu W, Zhang H, Ji L, et al. AI-Powered Next-Generation Technology for Semiconductor Optical Metrology: A Review. Micromachines. 2025; 16(8): 838. doi: 10.3390/mi16080838

[31]Guo Q, He Z, Wang Z. Monthly climate prediction using deep convolutional neural network and long short-term memory. Scientific Reports. 2024; 14(1): 17748. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-68906-6

[32]He Z, Guo Q, Zhang Z, et al. Forecasting Daily Ambient PM2.5 Concentrations in Qingdao City Using Deep Learning and Hybrid Interpretable Models and Analysis of Driving Factors Using SHAP. Toxics. 2025; 14(1): 44. doi: 10.3390/toxics14010044

[33]Wang Y, Song Y. An improved EM algorithm for variable selection with missing data in spatial error models. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation. 2025; 95(6): 1141–1164. doi: 10.1080/00949655.2024.2447860

[34]Xiong Z, Xia H, Ni J, et al. Basic assumptions, core connotations, and path methods of model modification—Using confirmatory factor analysis as an example. Frontiers in Education. 2025; 10: 1506415. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1506415

[35]He Z, Guo Q, Wang Z, et al. A Hybrid Wavelet-Based Deep Learning Model for Accurate Prediction of Daily Surface PM2.5 Concentrations in Guangzhou City. Toxics. 2025; 13(4): 254. doi: 10.3390/toxics13040254

[36]Guo Q, He Z, Wang Z. Prediction of monthly average and extreme atmospheric temperatures in Zhengzhou based on artificial neural network and deep learning models. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 2023; 6: 1249300. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2023.1249300

[37]He Z, Guo Q. Comparative Analysis of Multiple Deep Learning Models for Forecasting Monthly Ambient PM2.5 Concentrations: A Case Study in Dezhou City, China. Atmosphere. 2024; 15(12): 1432. doi: 10.3390/atmos15121432

[38]Guo Q, He Z, Wang Z. Assessing the effectiveness of long short-term memory and artificial neural network in predicting daily ozone concentrations in Liaocheng City. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15(1): 6798. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-91329-w

[39]Guo Q, He Z, Wang Z, et al. A Performance Comparison Study on Climate Prediction in Weifang City Using Different Deep Learning Models. Water. 2024; 16(19): 2870. doi: 10.3390/w16192870