ArticleStatistics in biosciences2018
Extending Tests of Random Effects to Assess for Measurement Invariance in Factor Models.
Article in Statistics in biosciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Factor analysis models are widely used in health research to summarize hard to measure predictor or outcome variable constructs. For example, in the ELEMENT study, factor models are used to summarize lead exposure biomarkers which are thought to indirectly measure prenatal exposure to lead. Classic latent factor models are fitted assuming that factor loadings are constant across all covariate levels (e.g., maternal age in ELEMENT); that is, measurement invariance (MI) is assumed. When the MI is not met, measurement bias is introduced. Traditionally, MI is examined by defining subgroups of the data based on covariates, fitting multi-group factor analysis, and testing differences in factor loadings across covariate groups. In this paper, we develop novel tests of measurement invariance by modeling the factor loadings as varying coeffcients, i.e., letting the factor loading vary across continuous covariate values instead of groups. These varying coeffcients are estimated using penalized splines, where spline coeffcients are penalized by treating them as random coeffcients. The test of MI is then carried out by conducting a likelihood ratio test for the null hypothesis that the variance of the random spline coeffcients equals zero. We use a Monte-Carlo EM algorithm for estimation, and obtain the likelihood using Monte-Carlo in tegration. Using simulations, we compare the Type I error and power of our testing approach and the multi-group testing method. We apply the proposed methods to to summarize data on prenatal biomarkers of lead exposure from the ELEMENT study and find violations of MI due to maternal age.
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.