Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42599346›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Distal outcomes in mixture modeling: A guide for pairwise comparisons, multiplicity control, and effect size reporting.

Delwin B Carter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 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

1 author.

Delwin B CarterGevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA. delwincarter@ucsb.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0771-9301

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the widespread use of mixture models in psychology, education, and the behavioral sciences, there is little consolidated guidance on how distal outcome differences should be tested, corrected for multiplicity, and reported once a latent class or profile solution has been selected. In practice, applied researchers often report omnibus tests without follow-up comparisons, conduct uncorrected pairwise tests, or omit effect sizes and confidence intervals altogether, limiting the interpretability and reproducibility of findings. Consistent with this concern, a targeted reporting-practice audit of recent applied person-centered studies showed that multiplicity adjustment, global distal outcome effect sizes, pairwise effect sizes, and confidence intervals for pairwise effects were rarely reported. The present paper synthesizes recommendations from the general statistical literature and adapts them to the context of mixture modeling, focusing primarily on continuous distal outcomes and comparisons of class-specific means. We propose a principled framework for (a) defining appropriate families of pairwise comparisons for distal outcomes, (b) selecting and implementing multiplicity corrections with Benjamini-Hochberg recommended as the default procedure for applied distal outcome comparisons, and (c) computing and reporting global and pairwise effect sizes and confidence intervals using quantities readily available from standard mixture modeling software (e.g., Mplus). Through worked examples and a software-agnostic Quarto/R supplement, we demonstrate how these practices can be implemented transparently and consistently across common auxiliary-variable approaches, including maximum likelihood (ML) three-step and Bolck-Croon-Hagenaars (BCH) methods.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalResearch DesignData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansAuxiliary variablesDistal outcomesEffect sizesLatent class analysisMixture modelingMultiple comparisons

Identifiers

PMID42599346
PMCPMC13476281

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.