{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01287128712871287, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.020833333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
When constraints interact: a caution about reference variables, identification constraints, and scale dependencies in structural equation modeling.

In traditional approaches to structural equations modeling, variances of latent endogenous variables cannot be specified or constrained directly and, consequently, are not identified, unless certain precautions are taken. The usual method for achieving identification has been to fix one factor loading for each endogenous latent variable at unity. An alternative approach is to fix variances using newer constrained estimation algorithms. This article examines the philosophy behind such constraints and shows how their appropriate use is neither as straightforward nor as noncontroversial as portrayed in textbooks and computer manuals. The constraints on latent variable variances can interact with other model constraints to interfere with the testing of certain kinds of hypotheses and can yield incorrect standardized solutions with some popular software.