Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31008441›Full record

ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2019

Using Structural Equation Modeling to Examine the Influence of Social, Behavioral, and Nutritional Variables on Health Outcomes Based on NHANES Data: Addressing Complex Design, Nonnormally Distributed Variables, and Missing Information.

Micah L Hartwell, Jam Khojasteh, Marianna S Wetherill, Julie M Croff, Denna Wheeler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Micah L HartwellSchool of Community Health Sciences, Counseling and Counseling Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.ORCID 0000-0001-6810-6571
Jam KhojastehSchool of Education Foundations, Leadership and Aviation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Marianna S WetherillDepartment of Health Promotion Sciences, Hudson College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Tulsa Schusterman Center, Tulsa, OK.ORCID 0000-0002-5937-4686
Julie M CroffMaster of Public Health Program, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, OK.ORCID 0000-0002-0415-3237
Denna WheelerMaster of Public Health Program, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, OK.

Funding

The Impact of Maternal Adversity and Attachment Security on Infant Stress Reactivity: Prenatal Epigenetic PathwaysP20GM109097 · NIGMS · OSU CENTER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Jason A. Avery · 2016 to 2026
$22.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109097
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStructural equation modeling (SEM) is a multivariate analysis method for exploring relations between latent constructs and measured variables. As a theory-guided approach, SEM estimates directional pathways in complex models based on longitudinal or cross-sectional data where randomized control trials would either be unethical or cost prohibitive. However, this method is infrequently used in nutrition research, despite recommendations by epidemiologists for its increased use.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to explore 3 key methodologic areas for consideration by researchers when conducting SEM with complex survey datasets: the use of sampling weights, treatment of missing data, and model estimation techniques.

methodsWith the use of data from NHANES waves 2005-2010, we developed an SEM to estimate the relation between the latent construct of depression and measured variables of food security, tobacco use (serum cotinine), and age. We used a hierarchic approach to compare 5 SEM model iterations through the use of:

resultsPath coefficients differed between 15.68% and 19.17% among model iterations. Nearly one-third of the cases had missing values, and MI reliably imputed values, allowing all cases to be represented in the final model iterations. QML provided better model fit statistics in all iterations.

conclusionsNutrition epidemiologists should use complex weights, MI, and QML as a best-practices approach to SEM when conducting analyses with complex design survey data.

Indexed as

complex survey designmultiple imputationNHANESquasi-maximum likelihoodStructural equation modeling

Identifiers

PMID31008441
PMCPMC6465451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.