The purpose of this article is to present an empirical analysis of complex sample data with regard to the biasing effect of non‐independence of observations on standard error parameter estimates. Using field data structured in the form of repeated measurements it is to be shown, in a two‐factor confirmatory factor analysis model, how the bias in SE can be derived when the non‐independence is ignored.
Three estimation procedures are compared: normal asymptotic theory (maximum likelihood); non‐parametric standard error estimation (naïve bootstrap); and sandwich (robust covariance matrix) estimation (pseudo‐maximum likelihood).
The study reveals that, when using either normal asymptotic theory or non‐parametric standard error estimation, the SE bias produced by the non‐independence of observations can be noteworthy.
Considering the methodological constraints in employing field data, the three analyses examined must be interpreted independently and as a result taxonomic generalisations are limited. However, the study still provides “case study” evidence suggesting the existence of the relationship between non‐independence of observations and standard error bias estimates.
Given the increasing popularity of structural equation models in the social sciences and in particular in the marketing discipline, the paper provides a theoretical and practical insight into how to treat repeated measures and clustered data in general, adding to previous methodological research. Some conclusions and suggestions for researchers who make use of partial least squares modelling are also drawn.
