ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Distal outcomes in mixture modeling: A guide for pairwise comparisons, multiplicity control, and effect size reporting.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Engagement Alone: Heterogeneous Profiles of Academic Engagement and Mental Well-Being Among Chinese Adolescents.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.