Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31152385›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2020

Repeated measures regression mixture models.

Minjung Kim, M Lee Van Horn, Thomas Jaki, Jeroen Vermunt, Daniel Feaster, Kenneth L Lichstein, Daniel J Taylor, Brant W Riedel, Andrew J Bush

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Minjung KimDepartment of Educational Studies, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Kim.7144@osu.edu.
M Lee Van HornDepartment of Individual, Family, and Community Education, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. mlvh@unm.edu.
Thomas JakiDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Jeroen VermuntDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Daniel FeasterDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Division of Biostatistics, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Kenneth L LichsteinDepartment of Psychology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.
Daniel J TaylorDepartment of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA.
Brant W RiedelShelby County Schools, Memphis, TN, USA.
Andrew J BushDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.

Funding

Risk in Context: New Methodology for Modeling Risk by Context InteractionsR01HD054736 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI VAN HORN, M LEE · 2007 to 2016
$1.4M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD054736
6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalBiasHumansRegression AnalysisSample SizeHeterogeneous effectsRegression mixture modelsRepeated measuresSample size

Identifiers

PMID31152385
PMCPMC6885112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.