ArticleBehavior research methods2020
Repeated measures regression mixture models.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychological and anthropometric outcomes in preschool children exposed to antenatal maternal obesity: modelling of early life risk factors.BMJ mental health · 2026Article
- Comparison of the TyG index, TyG-traditional obesity indices, and TyG-novel obesity indices: does increased complexity help in predicting cardiometabolic multimorbidity?Lipids in health and disease · 2025Article
- Associations of longitudinal trajectories of triglyceride-glucose index combined with classical and novel obesity indices and cardiovascular disease: evidence from a nationwide prospective cohort study in China.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Observational
- Normal and nonnormal polynomial regression mixture modeling for differential congruence effects: A simulation and tutorial.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Bayesian p-curve mixture models as a tool to dissociate effect size and effect prevalence.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- The Impact of Imposing Equality Constraints on Residual Variances Across Classes in Regression Mixture Models.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Regression mixture models are one increasingly utilized approach for developing theories about and exploring the heterogeneity of effects. In this study we aimed to extend the current use of regression mixtures to a repeated regression mixture method when repeated measures, such as diary-type and experience-sampling method, data are available. We hypothesized that additional information borrowed from the repeated measures would improve the model performance, in terms of class enumeration and accuracy of the parameter estimates. We specifically compared three types of model specifications in regression mixtures: (a) traditional single-outcome model; (b) repeated measures models with three, five, and seven measures; and (c) a single-outcome model with the average of seven repeated measures. The results showed that the repeated measures regression mixture models substantially outperformed the traditional and average single-outcome models in class enumeration, with less bias in the parameter estimates. For sample size, whereas prior recommendations have suggested that regression mixtures require samples of well over 1,000 participants, even for classes at a large distance from each other (classes with regression weights of .20 vs. .70), the present repeated measures regression mixture models allow for samples as low as 200 participants with an increased number (i.e., seven) of repeated measures. We also demonstrate an application of the proposed repeated measures approach using data from the Sleep Research Project. Implications and limitations of the study are discussed.
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.