ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2018
A Comparison of Mixture Modeling Approaches in Latent Class Models With External Variables Under Small Samples.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patterns of multimorbidity and their association with edentulism: the moderating role of health literacy in the Lifelines Cohort.European journal of public health · 2026Article
- Covariate inclusion in factor mixture modeling: Evaluating one-step and three-step approaches under model misspecification and overfitting.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Prison Population Reductions and COVID-19: A Latent Profile Analysis Synthesizing Recent Evidence From the Texas State Prison System.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2021Article
- Comparing the Robustness of Stepwise Mixture Modeling With Continuous Nonnormal Distal Outcomes.Educational and psychological measurement · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.