Methods for Estimating Sample Size in Structural Equation Modeling
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17309/jltm.2026.7.2.03Keywords:
research methodology, structural equation modeling, sample size estimation, statistical power, model complexityAbstract
Background. Sample size estimation in Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) remains a debated methodological issue. Although minimum sample size rules are widely used, they often lack integration of theoretical, statistical, and practical considerations, particularly in complex research designs.
Objectives. This study aims to provide a synthesis and comparative analysis of different approaches to sample size estimation in SEM, integrating theoretical foundations, statistical criteria, methodological limitations, and applied research contexts.
Materials and Methods. A multi-method approach was employed, consisting of three components: a narrative review of sample size estimation methods, consideration of simulated scenarios reflecting realistic research conditions, and a comparative evaluation of method performance across these scenarios.
Results. Findings show that rule-of-thumb approaches are useful for preliminary estimates but may misrepresent required sample sizes in complex models. Power analysis provides more precise and rigorous estimates, particularly for confirmatory research. Monte Carlo simulations offer robust guidance for complex, longitudinal, and multigroup models. Estimator-based recommendations highlight the importance of aligning sample size with data characteristics and estimation techniques. Model complexity emerged as a key determinant, with advanced SEM models often requiring 400–700+ participants.
Conclusions. A systematic and context-sensitive approach to sample size estimation is essential for ensuring robustness and methodological rigor in SEM studies across disciplines such as management and education.
Downloads
References
Nusair, K., & Hua, N. (2010). Comparative assessment of structural equation modeling and multiple regression research methodologies: E-commerce context. Tourism Management, 31(3), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.010
Xiong, B., Skitmore, M.R., & Xia, B. (2015). A critical review of structural equation modeling applications in construction research. Automation in Construction, 49, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.09.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.09.006
Allammari, Y., Taqi, A., & El Morabit, N. (2025). Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance: A sequential mediation analysis of market and learning orientations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.9(2)02 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.9(2)02
Dulaimi, M.F., Nepal, M.P., & Park, M. (2005). A hierarchical structural model of assessing innovation and project performance. Construction Management and Economics, 23(6), 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500126684 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500126684
Ghardashi, F., Yaghoubi, M., Teymourzadeh, E., Bahadori, M., & Salesi, M. (2022). The innovation capability model in higher education: A structural equation modelling approach. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 15(4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2022.2125594 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2022.2125594
Kline, R. (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press.
Cheung, G.W., Cooper-Thomas, H.D., Lau, R.S., & Wang, L.C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490–023–09871-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
Newsom, J.T. (2023). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003263036
Panzeri, A., Castelnuovo, G., & Spoto, A. (2024). Assessing Discriminant Validity through Structural Equation Modeling: The Case of Eating Compulsivity. Nutrients, 16(4), 550. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16040550 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16040550
Kim, K.H. (2005). The Relation Among Fit Indexes, Power, and Sample Size in Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 368–390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_2
Hox, J.J., Maas, C.J.M., & Brinkhuis, M.J.S. (2010). The effect of estimation method and sample size in multilevel structural equation modeling. Statistica Neerlandica, 64, 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9574.2009.00445.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9574.2009.00445.x
Nicolaou, A., & Masoner, M. (2013). Sample size requirements in structural equation models under standard conditions. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 14(4), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2013.11.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2013.11.001
Ramos-Vera, C.A. (2022). Beyond sample size estimation in clinical univariate analysis. An online calculation for structural equation modeling and network analysis on latent and observable variables. Nutrición Hospitalaria, 38(6), 1310. https://doi.org/10.20960/nh.03751 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20960/nh.03751
Wang, Y.A., & Rhemtulla, M. (2021). Power Analysis for Parameter Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling: A Discussion and Tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920918253 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920918253
Wolf, E., Harrington, K., Clark, S., & Miller, M. (2013). Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educ Psychol Meas, 76(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
Ali Memon, M., Ting, H., Cheah, J.H., Ramayah, T., Chuah, F., & Cham, T.H. (2020). Sample Size for Survey Research: Review and Recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 4(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.4(2)01 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.4(2)01
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003
Kush, J.M., Konold, T.R., & Bradshaw, C.P. (2021). The Sampling Ratio in Multilevel Structural Equation Models: Considerations to Inform Study Design. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 82(3), 409–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644211020112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644211020112
Buchberger, E., Ngo, C.T., Peikert, A., Brandmaier, A., & Werkle-Bergner, M. (2024). Estimating statistical power for structural equation models in developmental cognitive science: A tutorial in R. Behavior Research Methods, 56, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428–024–02396–2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02396-2
Flora, D.B., Crone, G., & Bell, S.M. (2025). Effect Size Interpretation in Structural Equation Models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32(6), 1069–1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2025.2459768 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2025.2459768
Graf, S., & Korn, R. (2020). A guide to Monte Carlo simulation concepts for assessment of risk-return profiles for regulatory purposes. European Actuarial Journal, 10, 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13385–020–00232–3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13385-020-00232-3
Harrison, R.L. (2010). Introduction To Monte Carlo Simulation. AIP Conf Proc, 1204, 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3295638 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3295638
Schamberger, T. (2023). Conducting Monte Carlo simulations with PLS-PM and other variance-based estimators for structural equation models: a tutorial using the R package cSEM. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 123(6), 1789–1813. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07–2022–0418 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2022-0418
Serang, S. (2020). A Monte Carlo Test for Longitudinal Structural Equation Models in Small Samples. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1756293 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1756293
Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2017). Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Structural Equation Models for Continuous Data: Standard Errors and Goodness of Fit. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(3), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1269606 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1269606
DiStefano, C., & Morgan, G.B. (2014). A Comparison of Diagonal Weighted Least Squares Robust Estimation Techniques for Ordinal Data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373
van Kesteren, E.J., & Oberski, D.L. (2019). Exploratory Mediation Analysis with Many Potential Mediators. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 710–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1588124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1588124
Koufteros, X., Babbar, S., & Kaighobadi, M. (2009). A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling. International Journal of Production Economics, 120(2), 633–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.04.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.04.010
Yang, Y., Luo, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2020). A Cautionary Note on Identification and Scaling Issues in Second-order Latent Growth Models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(2), 302–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1747938 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1747938
Kelava, A., Moosbrugger, H., Dimitruk, P., & Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2008). Multicollinearity and missing constraints: A comparison of three approaches for the analysis of latent nonlinear effects. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 4(2), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614–2241.4.2.51 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.51
Tarka, P. (2017). An overview of structural equation modeling: its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Quality and Quantity, 52(1), 313–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135–017–0469–8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0469-8
Hammond, C. (2005). The Wider Benefits of Adult Learning: An Illustration of the Advantages of Multi-method Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500155037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500155037
Schuberth, F., Hubona, G., Roemer, E., Zaza, S., Schamberger, T., Chuah, F., Cepeda-Carrión, G., & Henseler, J. (2023). The choice of structural equation modeling technique matters: A commentary on Dash and Paul (2021). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122665 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122665
Akobeng, A.K. (2016). Understanding type I and type II errors, statistical power and sample size. Acta Paediatrica, 105, 605–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13384 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13384
Darling, H.S. (2024). Statistical errors in scientific research: A narrative review. Cancer Research, Statistics and Treatment, 7(2), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.4103/crst.crst_283_23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/crst.crst_283_23
Rothman, K.J. (2010). Curbing type I and type II errors. European Journal of Epidemiology, 25, 223–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654–010–9437–5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9437-5
McQuitty, S. (2004). Statistical power and structural equation models in business research. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148–2963(01)00301–0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00301-0
Cole, D.A., Abitante, G., Kan, H., Liu, Q., Preacher, K.J., & Maxwell, S.E. (2025). Practical Problems Estimating and Reporting Power When Hypotheses Are Embedded in Complex Statistical Models. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241302300 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241302300
Irmer, J.P. (2024). Model-implied simulation-based power estimation for correctly specified and distributionally misspecified models: Applications to nonlinear and linear structural equation models. Behavior Research Methods, 56, 8955–8991. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428–024–02507-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02507-z
Hsu, H.Y., Lin, J., Skidmore, S.T., & Kim, M. (2019). Evaluating fit indices in a multilevel latent growth curve model: A Monte Carlo study. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 172–194. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428–018–1169–6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1169-6
Schultzberg, M., & Muthén, B. (2017). Number of Subjects and Time Points Needed for Multilevel Time-Series Analysis: A Simulation Study of Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1392862 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1392862
Montoya, A.K., & Edwards, M.C. (2020). The Poor Fit of Model Fit for Selecting Number of Factors in Exploratory Factor Analysis for Scale Evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(3), 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420942899 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420942899
Savalei, V. (2020). Improving Fit Indices in Structural Equation Modeling with Categorical Data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56(3), 390–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1717922 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1717922
Chakravorti, T., Koneru, S., & Rajtmajer, S. (2025). Reproducibility and replicability in research: What 452 professors think in Universities across the USA and India. PLoS One, 20(3), e0319334. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319334 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319334
Epskamp, S. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in a Fast-Paced Methodological World. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847421 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847421
Rahal, R.M., Hamann, H., Brohmer, H., & Pethig, F. (2022). Sharing the Recipe: Reproducibility and Replicability in Research Across Disciplines. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 8, e89980. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e89980 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e89980
Guenther, P., Guenther, M., Ringle, C., Zaefarian, G., & Cartwright, S. (2025). PLS-SEM and reflective constructs: A response to recent criticism and a constructive path forward. Industrial Marketing Management, 128, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2025.05.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2025.05.003
Yuan, K.H., Tong, X., & Zhang, Z. (2015). Bias and Efficiency for SEM With Missing Data and Auxiliary Variables: Two-Stage Robust Method Versus Two-Stage ML. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(2), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.935750 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.935750
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fernando Almeida
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
