Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41921519›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2026

Novel Psychometric Indicator Assessments: The Relative Excess Correlation and Associated Matrices.

Tyler J VanderWeele, R Noah Padgett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. 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

2 authors.

Tyler J VanderWeeleFrom the Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-6112-0239
R Noah PadgettDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-9114-3896

Funding

Theory and methods for mediation and interactionR01CA222147 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI TCHETGEN TCHETGEN, ERIC JOEL, VANDERWEELE, TYLER · 2018 to 2022
$2.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA222147
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For a series of indicators used to assess psychosocial constructs, we propose reporting new types of correlation matrices to gain greater insight into the relation of the indicators with one another. What we define as the observed residual correlation (ORC) matrix can give insight as to whether, when a given indicator is above the indicator-average scores across all indicators for that individual, what other indicators might be anticipated to be above that individual's average score as well. What we define as the relative excess correlation (REC) matrix can give insight, for each pair of indicators, whether the strength of that particular correlation is above or below what might have been anticipated based on the correlation of each of those two indicators with all of the others. The ORC and REC matrices will, generally, have numerous negative entries even if all of the raw correlations between each pair of indicators are positive. We discuss the properties of, and the relations between, these correlation matrices, and their analogues for covariances. The positive deviations of the REC matrix entries from zero also can help identify clusters of indicators that are more strongly related to one another, providing insights somewhat analogous to factor analysis, but without the need for decisions concerning rotations or the number of factors. However, the ORC and REC matrices can also be used purely descriptively to provide insights into understanding the relation of indicators with one another.

Indexed as

PsychometricsCorrelation of DataHumansCorrelationsFactor analysisPsychometricsRelative excess correlationsWithin-person centering

Identifiers

PMID41921519
PMCPMC13034737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.