ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2026
Advantages in Bayesian Approaches to Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To conduct rigorous evaluations of preventive interventions, it is foundational to establish the psychometric or measurement quality of the measures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a popular method of modeling and evaluating measurement quality. Such analyses are typically conducted within a frequentist framework, which can pose challenges in an applied research setting due to the strong conditions required to establish measurement quality (e.g., sufficient sample size, exact measurement invariance (MI), and high sensitivity to group differences). An alternative set of approaches involves Bayesian methods, which offer several advantages. However, they remain underutilized by prevention scientists. The main goal of this paper is to illustrate several of the advantages that Bayesian methods offer in the context of analyses of data from the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) through five examples. We illustrate the advantages of Bayesian methods over maximum likelihood in terms of result interpretation, and highlight how Bayesian methods allow us to express uncertainty in ways we always intended, avoiding misconceptions associated with frequentist approaches (Example 1). We also show how Bayesian methods help to avoid estimation problems (Example 2), examine parameter MI in both conventional and more flexible ways (Examples 3 and 4), and incorporate substantive prior information into our analysis (Example 5). By highlighting these advantages, we aim to motivate prevention researchers to consider using Bayesian methods for CFA and other analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42240741What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.