Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41295431›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025

Small Samples, Big Insights: A Methodological Comparison of Estimation Techniques for Latent Divergent Thinking Models.

Selina Weiss, Lara S Elmdust, Benjamin Goecke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Selina WeissInstitute of Psychology, University of Hildesheim, Universitätsplatz 1, 31141 Hildesheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8796-2154
Lara S ElmdustInstitute of Psychology, University of Hildesheim, Universitätsplatz 1, 31141 Hildesheim, Germany.
Benjamin GoeckeHector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen, 72074 Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3050-1848

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In psychology, small sample sizes are a frequent challenge-particularly when studying specific expert populations or using complex and cost-intensive methods like human scoring of creative answers-as they reduce statistical power, bias results, and limit generalizability. They also hinder the use of frequentist confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which depends on larger samples for reliable estimation. Problems such as non-convergence, inadmissible parameters, and poor model fit are more likely. In contrast, Bayesian methods offer a robust alternative, being less sensitive to sample size and allowing the integration of prior knowledge through parameter priors. In the present study, we introduce small-sample-size structural equation modeling to creativity research by investigating the relationship between creative fluency and nested creative cleverness with right-wing authoritarianism, starting with a sample size of

Indexed as

Bayesian SEMcreativitydivergent thinkingsmall sample

Identifiers

PMID41295431
PMCPMC12653488

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.