A comparison of three-step approaches for auxiliary variables in latent class and latent profile analysis
ZK Collier, WL Leite - Structural Equation Modeling: A …, 2017 - Taylor & Francis
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2017•Taylor & Francis
In this article, 3-step methods to include predictors and distal outcomes in commonly used
mixture models are evaluated. Two Monte Carlo simulation studies were conducted to
compare the pseudo class (PC), Vermunt's (2010), and the Lanza, Tan, and Bray (LTB) 3-
step approaches with respect to bias of parameter estimates in latent class analysis (LCA)
and latent profile analysis (LPA) models with auxiliary variables. For coefficients of
predictors of class membership, results indicated that Vermunt's method yielded more …
mixture models are evaluated. Two Monte Carlo simulation studies were conducted to
compare the pseudo class (PC), Vermunt's (2010), and the Lanza, Tan, and Bray (LTB) 3-
step approaches with respect to bias of parameter estimates in latent class analysis (LCA)
and latent profile analysis (LPA) models with auxiliary variables. For coefficients of
predictors of class membership, results indicated that Vermunt's method yielded more …
In this article, 3-step methods to include predictors and distal outcomes in commonly used mixture models are evaluated. Two Monte Carlo simulation studies were conducted to compare the pseudo class (PC), Vermunt’s (2010), and the Lanza, Tan, and Bray (LTB) 3-step approaches with respect to bias of parameter estimates in latent class analysis (LCA) and latent profile analysis (LPA) models with auxiliary variables. For coefficients of predictors of class membership, results indicated that Vermunt’s method yielded more accurate estimates for LCA and LPA compared to the PC method. With distal outcomes of latent classes and latent profiles, the LTB method produced the lowest relative bias of coefficient estimates and Type I error rates close to nominal levels.
Taylor & Francis Online以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果