Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38987395›Full record

ArticleBrain informatics2024

Improving Likert scale big data analysis in psychometric health economics: reliability of the new compositional data approach.

René Lehmann, Bodo Vogt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain informatics, 2024. 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. Twenty-Four-Hour Compositional Data Analysis in Healthcare: Clinical Potential and Future Directions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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

2 authors.

René Lehmannifes Institute of Empiricism and Statistics, FOM University of Applied Science, Essen, 45127, Germany. rene.lehmann@fom.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4145-8272
Bodo VogtChair in Business Administration, esp. in Empirical Economics, and Health Economics, Otto von Guericke University, Universitätsplatz 2, Magdeburg, 39106, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bipolar psychometric scales data are widely used in psychologic healthcare. Adequate psychological profiling benefits patients and saves time and costs. Grant funding depends on the quality of psychotherapeutic measures. Bipolar Likert scales yield compositional data because any order of magnitude of agreement towards an item assertion implies a complementary order of magnitude of disagreement. Using an isometric log-ratio (ilr) transformation the bivariate information can be transformed towards the real valued interval scale yielding unbiased statistical results increasing the statistical power of the Pearson correlation significance test if the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) of statistics is satisfied. In practice, however, the applicability of the CLT depends on the number of summands (i.e., the number of items) and the variance of the data generating process (DGP) of the ilr transformed data. Via simulation we provide evidence that the ilr approach also works satisfactory if the CLT is violated. That is, the ilr approach is robust towards extremely large or infinite variances of the underlying DGP increasing the statistical power of the correlation test. The study generalizes former results pointing out the universality and reliability of the ilr approach in psychometric big data analysis affecting psychometric health economics, patient welfare, grant funding, economic decision making and profits.

Indexed as

Big dataBipolar Likert scaleCompositional dataHeavy-tailed distributionsIlr transformation

Identifiers

PMID38987395
PMCPMC11236837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.