Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36030733›Full record

ArticleBehaviour research and therapy2022

Quantifying and addressing the impact of measurement error in network models.

Jill de Ron, Donald J Robinaugh, Eiko I Fried, Paola Pedrelli, Felipe A Jain, David Mischoulon, Sacha Epskamp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behaviour research and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Psychometric Network Model Recovery: The Effect of Sample Size, Number of Items, and Number of Nodes.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Network analysis: An overview for mental health research.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Jill de RonDepartment of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.deron@uva.nl.
Donald J RobinaughDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, USA; Department of Applied Psychology, Northeastern University, USA.
Eiko I FriedDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, the Netherlands.
Paola PedrelliDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, USA.
Felipe A JainDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, USA.
David MischoulonDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, USA.
Sacha EpskampDepartment of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Centre for Urban Mental Health, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

Mobile app delivered Mentalizing Imagery Therapy to augment remote family dementia caregiver skills training: a pilot randomized, controlled trial with outcomes assessment using digital phenotypingK76AG064390 · NIA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI JAIN, FELIPE A. · 2020 to 2024
$1.5M
Network Psychiatry: Using Network Science to Advance Our Understanding of Post-Bereavement PsychopathologyK23MH113805 · NIMH · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI ROBINAUGH, DONALD JOHN · 2018 to 2022
$988k
NIA NIH HHS K76 AG064390NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH113805
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Network psychometric models are often estimated using a single indicator for each node in the network, thus failing to consider potential measurement error. In this study, we investigate the impact of measurement error on cross-sectional network models. First, we conduct a simulation study to evaluate the performance of models based on single indicators as well as models that utilize information from multiple indicators per node, including average scores, factor scores, and latent variables. Our results demonstrate that measurement error impairs the reliability and performance of network models, especially when using single indicators. The reliability and performance of network models improves substantially with increasing sample size and when using methods that combine information from multiple indicators per node. Second, we use empirical data from the STAR*D trial (n = 3,731) to further evaluate the impact of measurement error. In the STAR*D trial, depression symptoms were assessed via three questionnaires, providing multiple indicators per symptom. Consistent with our simulation results, we find that when using sub-samples of this dataset, the discrepancy between the three single-indicator networks (one network per questionnaire) diminishes with increasing sample size. Together, our simulated and empirical findings provide evidence that measurement error can hinder network estimation when working with smaller samples and offers guidance on methods to mitigate measurement error.

Indexed as

Reproducibility of ResultsComputer SimulationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesLatent network modelingMeasurement errorMultiple-item indicatorsReplicabilitySingle-item indicators

Identifiers

PMID36030733
PMCPMC10786122

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.