KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 17 Issue: 3

A Comparative Analysis of Frequentist and Bayesian SEM Approaches in Modeling Social and Emotional Skills

İbrahim Helvacı(HARRAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-3090-5033
Cahit Polat(HARRAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1423-5084
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-10-01
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Overall, the relationships among social and emotional skills were positive and ranged from moderate to strong.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The exploration of the development of social and emotional skills, as well as their interrelations, remains a significant emphasis in educational and psychological research.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bayesian fit indices such as BCFI and BTLI demonstrated greater stability than their frequentist counterparts (CFI and TLI), while RMSEA showed stronger consistency within the frequentist approach compared to its Bayesian version (BRMSEA).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Overall, the relationships among social and emotional skills were positive and ranged from moderate to strong.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Social and Emotional Skills · Structural Equation Modeling · Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling

Abstract

The exploration of the development of social and emotional skills, as well as their interrelations, remains a significant emphasis in educational and psychological research. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is widely used for this purpose because it provides a comprehensive framework for examining complex relationships. Bayesian SEM has gained growing attention, offering unique strengths as well as certain limitations when compared to traditional frequentist approaches. In this study, we used data from the OECD's Social and Emotional Skills Survey (SESS) to compare results produced by frequentist and Bayesian SEM. Analyses focused on the five broad domains represented in the Big Five Model. Our findings revealed meaningful differences. Bayesian fit indices such as BCFI and BTLI demonstrated greater stability than their frequentist counterparts (CFI and TLI), while RMSEA showed stronger consistency within the frequentist approach compared to its Bayesian version (BRMSEA). These patterns suggest that BCFI, BTLI, and BRMSEA may be particularly informative and reliable in Bayesian SEM applications, especially when prior information is incorporated into the model. Additionally, we observed that discrepancies in standardized factor loadings and correlations became more evident as model complexity increased. Overall, the relationships among social and emotional skills were positive and ranged from moderate to strong.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Helvacı, İ., Polat, C. (2026). A Comparative Analysis of Frequentist and Bayesian SEM Approaches in Modeling Social and Emotional Skills. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Volume: 17 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.1894053

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (60)

  1. Alharyout, A. O., & Abdullah, A. H. (2018). Confirmatory factor analysis of big five personality factors (CFA-BFPF). British Journal of Education, Learning and Development Psychology, 1(1), 29-36. https://abjournals.org/article-pdf/BJELDP_nyb0b03t.pdf
  2. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360
  3. Apple, M. T. (2011). The Big Five personality traits and foreign language speaking confidence among Japanese EFL students. Temple University.
  4. Arthur, W. & Graziano, W. G. (1996). The five-factor model, conscientiousness, and driving accident involvement. Journal of Personality, 64, 593-618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00523.x
  5. Asparouhov, T. & Muthén, B. (2021) Advances in Bayesian model fit evaluation for structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(1), 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1764360
  6. Bacanlı, H., İlhan, T., & Aslan, S. (2009). Beş faktör kuramına dayalı bir kişilik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: sıfatlara dayalı kişilik testi (SDKT). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 261-279. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/256271
  7. Bidjerano, T., & Dai, D. Y. (2007). The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.001
  8. Casel (2020). Preparing youth for the workforce of tomorrow: Cultivating the social and emotional skills employers demand. https://casel.org/casel-gateway-preparing-workforce-of-tomorrow/?view=true
  9. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054116
  10. Chauvin, B., Hermand, D., & Mullet, E. (2007). Risk perception and personality facets. Risk Analysis, 1, 171-185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00867.x
  11. Chernyshenko, O. S., Kankaras, M., & Drasgow, F. (2018). Social and emotional skills for student success and wellbeing: Conceptual framework for the OECD study on social and emotional skills. OECD Education Working Paper No. 173. https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2018)9&docLanguage=En.
  12. Chiorri, C., Marsh, H. W., Ubbiali, A., & Donati, D. (2015). Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance across gender of the Big Five Inventory through exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(1), 88-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1035381
  13. Congdon, P. (2003). Bayesians statistical modelling. John Wiley & Sons.
  14. Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I
  15. Cristóvão, A. M., Candeias, A. A., & Verdasca, J. L. (2020). Development of socio-emotional and creative skills in primary education: Teachers’ perceptions about the Gulbenkian XXI School Learning Communities Project. Frontiers in Education, 4, 160. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00160
  16. DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the big five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1138–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1138
  17. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B. & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 533-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4
  18. Depaoli, S. (2021). Bayesian structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
  19. Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order, factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246-1256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246
  20. Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16(2), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1602_2
  21. Doğan, M. (2017). Bayesci yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: teknoloji kabul modeli uygulaması. [Doctoral Thesis, Eskişehir Osmangazi Univeristy]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=RrI-Krk3A-RkF4YfHofukxLa03_IxLg9YJVEdE5Kn_ukRnSkV5sp-nP5Z8WP8Wcp
  22. Edeh, E., Liang, X., & Cao, C. (2025). Probing beyond: The impact of model size and prior informativeness on Bayesian SEM fit indices. Behavior Research Methods, 57(4), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02609-2
  23. Elias, M. J., & Arnold, H. (2006). The educator's guide to emotional intelligence and academic achievement: Social-emotional learning in the classroom. Corwin Press.
  24. Erkan, G., Doğan, M., & Tatlıdil, H. (2023). The Comparison of Classical and Bayesian Structural Equation Models Through Ordered Categorical Data: A Case Study of Banking Service Quality. Gazi University Journal of Science, 36(3), 1392-1402. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.814405
  25. Eryılmaz, A., & Öğülmüş, S. (2010). Ergenlikte öznel iyi oluş ve beş faktörlü kişilik modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(3), 189-203. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1492912
  26. Gana, K., & Broc, G. (2019). Structural equation modeling with lavaan. Wiley-ISTE.
  27. Garnier-Villarreal, M., & Jorgensen, T. D. (2020). Adapting fit indices for Bayesian structural equation modeling: Comparison to maximum likelihood. Psychological Methods, 25(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000224
  28. Gelman, A. & Rubin D. B. (1996). Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods in Biostatistics. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 5(4), 339-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029600500402
  29. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. In S. E. Hyman (Ed.). Personality and personality disorders: The science of mental health (pp. 1216–1229). New York, NY: Routledge.
  30. Gueldner, B., Feuerborn, L. L., & Meller, K. W. (2010). Social and emotional learning in the classroom: Promoting mental health and academic success. New York: Guilford Press.
  31. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
  32. Hoff, D. P. (2009). A First Course in Bayesian Statistical Methods. 2. Springer, VIII, USA. 270.
  33. Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & Van De Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  34. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  35. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). Big five inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/t07550-000
  36. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to integrative big five traittaxonomy: History, measurement and conceptual issues, in handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: The Guildford Press.
  37. Kankaras, M., & Suarez-Alvarez, J. (2019). Assessment framework of the OECD study on social and emotional skills. OECD Education Working Paper No. 207. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/10/assessment-framework-of-the-oecd-study-on-social-and-emotional-skills_0120b827/5007adef-en.pdf
  38. Karaman, N. G., Dogan, T., & Coban, A. E. (2010). A study to adapt the big five inventory to Turkish. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2357-2359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.336
  39. Kircaburun, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Instagram addiction and the Big Five of personality: The mediating role of self-liking. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(1), 158-170. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.15
  40. Kline, R. B. (2016). Methodology in the social sciences: Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
  41. Lee, S. Y., & Song, X. Y. (2004). Bayesian model comparison of nonlinear structural equation models with missing continuous and ordinal categorical data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57(1), 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711004849204
  42. Lee, S. Y. (2007). Structural equation modeling: A Bayesian approach. John Wiley & Sons.
  43. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
  44. Majid, S., Liming, Z., Tong, S., & Raihana, S. (2012). Importance of soft skills for education and career success. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 2(2), 1036-1042. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2012.0147
  45. Mcdonald, R. P. (1989). An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality. Journal of Classification, 6, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01908590
  46. Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  47. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021). OECD survey on social and emotional skills: Technical report. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/edu/survey-on-social-and-emotional-skills/Technical%20Report%20SSES.pdf
  48. Ozechowski, T. J. (2014). Empirical Bayes MCMC estimation for modeling treatment processes, mechanisms of change, and clinical outcomes in small samples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(5), 854-867. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035889
  49. Ong, F. S., Khong, K. W., Yeoh, K. K., Syuhaily, O., & Nor, O. M. (2018). A comparison between structural equation modelling (SEM) and Bayesian SEM approaches on in-store behaviour. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 118(1), 41-64. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2016-0423
  50. Radzi, C. W. J. B. W. M., Hui, H., & Salarzadeh Jenatabadi, H. (2016). Comparing Bayesian and maximum likelihood predictors in structural equation modeling of children’s lifestyle index. Symmetry, 8(12), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym8120141
  51. Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006), A first course in structural equation modeling, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  52. Schmukle, S. C., Back, M. D., & Egloff, B. (2008). Validity of the five-factor model for the implicit self-concept of personality. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.24.4.263
  53. Sığrı, Ü., & Gürbüz, S. (2011). Akademik başarı ve kişilik ilişkisi: Üniversite öğrencileri üzerinde bir araştırma. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(1), 30-48. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/180269
  54. Somer, O., Korkmaz, M., & Tatar, A. (2002). Beş faktör kişilik envanteri’nin geliştirilmesi-1: Ölçek ve alt ölçeklerin oluşturulması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 17(49), 21–36.
  55. Stenling, A., Ivarsson, A., Johnson, U., & Lindwall, M. (2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling in sport and exercise psychology. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37(4), 410-420. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0330
  56. Şehribanoğlu, S. (2012). Yapısal eşitlik modellerinde parametre tahmininde gibbs örneklemesi. [Master thesis, Yüzüncü Yıl University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=vVNzTGHHhjH-u3WMToxQ-i0Hxn1KrzokisjNFs89Y1IKbsE4a_6F6JKZA10EB2GB
  57. Şehribanoğlu, S., & Okut, H. (2013). Bayesci yapısal eşitlik modellerinde prametre tahminlemesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(1-2), 33-38. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/204635
  58. Şen, S. (2020). Mplus ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi uygulamaları. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  59. Türnüklü, A. (2004). Okullarda sosyal ve duygusal öğrenme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 37(37), 136-152. https://izlik.org/JA49CY24NY
  60. Wei, X., Huang, J., Zhang, L., Pan, D., & Pan, J. (2022). Evaluation and comparison of SEM, ESEM, and BSEM in estimating structural models with potentially unknown cross-loadings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(3), 327-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2021.2006664