Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30559509›Full record

ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2018

A Comparison of Mixture Modeling Approaches in Latent Class Models With External Variables Under Small Samples.

Unkyung No, Sehee Hong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Educational and psychological measurement, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Unkyung NoKorea University, Seoul, Korea, Republic of Korea.
Sehee HongKorea University, Seoul, Korea, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to compare performances of mixture modeling approaches (i.e., one-step approach, three-step maximum-likelihood approach, three-step BCH approach, and LTB approach) based on diverse sample size conditions. To carry out this research, two simulation studies were conducted with two different models, a latent class model with three predictor variables and a latent class model with one distal outcome variable. For the simulation, data were generated under the conditions of different sample sizes (100, 200, 300, 500, 1,000), entropy (0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9), and the variance of a distal outcome (homoscedasticity, heteroscedasticity). For evaluation criteria, parameter estimates bias, standard error bias, mean squared error, and coverage were used. Results demonstrate that the three-step approaches produced more stable and better estimations than the other approaches even with a small sample size of 100. This research differs from previous studies in the sense that various models were used to compare the approaches and smaller sample size conditions were used. Furthermore, the results supporting the superiority of the three-step approaches even in poorly manipulated conditions indicate the advantage of these approaches.

Indexed as

latent class models with external variablesLTB approachone-step approachsmall samplesthree-step BCH approachthree-step maximum-likelihood approach

Identifiers

PMID30559509
PMCPMC6293412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.