Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36682019›Full record

ArticlePsychometrika2023

Bayesian Inference for an Unknown Number of Attributes in Restricted Latent Class Models.

Yinghan Chen, Steven Andrew Culpepper, Yuguo Chen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychometrika, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A sparse latent class model incorporating response times.The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology · 2025
    Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Yinghan ChenDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 North Virginia Street, Reno, NV, 89557, USA. yinghanc@unr.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7255-1862
Steven Andrew CulpepperDepartment of Statistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 725 South Wright Street, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4226-6176
Yuguo ChenDepartment of Statistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 725 South Wright Street, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7148-1823

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The specification of the [Formula: see text] matrix in cognitive diagnosis models is important for correct classification of attribute profiles. Researchers have proposed many methods for estimation and validation of the data-driven [Formula: see text] matrices. However, inference of the number of attributes in the general restricted latent class model remains an open question. We propose a Bayesian framework for general restricted latent class models and use the spike-and-slab prior to avoid the computation issues caused by the varying dimensions of model parameters associated with the number of attributes, K. We develop an efficient Metropolis-within-Gibbs algorithm to estimate K and the corresponding [Formula: see text] matrix simultaneously. The proposed algorithm uses the stick-breaking construction to mimic an Indian buffet process and employs a novel Metropolis-Hastings transition step to encourage exploring the sample space associated with different values of K. We evaluate the performance of the proposed method through a simulation study under different model specifications and apply the method to a real data set related to a fluid intelligence matrix reasoning test.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationLatent Class AnalysisPsychometricsBayesian analysiscognitive diagnosis modelIndian buffet processlatent class modelspike-and-slab prior

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.