I'm fitting a SEM model, and everything is fine except the paper's reviewers want standardized total and indirect effects, and I need to report the standard errors of those coefficients.
Here is a bit of the Stata output:
For the standardized coeffient (.169), the output gives no SE. I recognize that's not a bug. According to the v15 manuals, "standard errors of the standardized effects are not reported." I note that as far back as the v12 manuals, it's been the same.
So, I have two questions:
(1) The value of the SE for the standardized coefficient is NOT obvious, right? Stata's choice to not report the SE makes me question the sanity of my sleep-deprived brain.
(2) The z-value wouldn't change when going from the unstandardized coefficient to the standardized coefficient, right? So, could I "back into" a calculation of the missing SE like this? SE of the standardized coefficient = the standardized coefficient / the reported z-value. In the example above, it would be .169/3.24 = .052 . Does that sound like a reasonable way to calculate the SE?
Here is a bit of the Stata output:
Code:
Total effects ------------------------------------------------------------------- | OIM | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| Std. Coef. ----------+-------------------------------------------------------- Structural| C2 <- | C1 | .4149453 .1280036 3.24 0.001 .1690857
So, I have two questions:
(1) The value of the SE for the standardized coefficient is NOT obvious, right? Stata's choice to not report the SE makes me question the sanity of my sleep-deprived brain.
(2) The z-value wouldn't change when going from the unstandardized coefficient to the standardized coefficient, right? So, could I "back into" a calculation of the missing SE like this? SE of the standardized coefficient = the standardized coefficient / the reported z-value. In the example above, it would be .169/3.24 = .052 . Does that sound like a reasonable way to calculate the SE?
Comment