Hi, my model results in a low critical ratio for most of the coefficient paths.
Can it be due to the sample size? N=157; I used maximum likelihood as an estimate.
Goodness of fit tests are all good.
Is there anyway how to solve that issue?
Hello Martin,
If you mean (as implied by Alizera's response) that the estimated path coefficients are not significantly different from zero, the most likely reasons would be:
1. There is little or no systematic relationship among the variables for the sample (and possibly the associated population) you are investigating.
2. There is a relationship, but your model is mis-specified (most likely by having omitted one or more important variables).
3. There is a relationship, but the statistical power of the procedure was inadequate to detect it/them (e.g., sample size was likely inadequate).
4. Some combination of the above.
Sorry if that's a bit generic, but your query really didn't furnish much detail about the specific model, variables proposed, and estimated relationships.
Good luck with your work.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Sampling Design
- Sample Size