Psychological methods最新文献

Integrating regularization methods into structural equation modeling is gaining increasing popularity. The purpose of regularization is to improve variable selection, model estimation, and prediction accuracy. In this study, we aim to: (a) compare Bayesian regularization methods for exploring covariate effects in multiple-indicators multiple-causes models, (b) examine the sensitivity of results to hyperparameter settings of penalty priors, and (c) investigate prediction accuracy through cross-validation. The Bayesian regularization methods examined included: ridge, lasso, adaptive lasso, spike-and-slab prior (SSP) and its variants, and horseshoe and its variants. Sparse solutions were developed for the structural coefficient matrix that contained only a small portion of nonzero path coefficients characterizing the effects of selected covariates on the latent variable. Results from the simulation study showed that compared to diffuse priors, penalty priors were advantageous in handling small sample sizes and collinearity among covariates. Priors with only the global penalty (ridge and lasso) yielded higher model convergence rates and power, whereas priors with both the global and local penalties (horseshoe and SSP) provided more accurate parameter estimates for medium and large covariate effects. The horseshoe and SSP improved accuracy in predicting factor scores, while achieving more parsimonious models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 29(3) of Psychological Methods (see record 2025-28068-002). In the article, the copyright attribution was incorrectly listed, and the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license disclaimer was incorrectly omitted from the author note. The correct copyright is "© 2023 The Author(s)," and the omitted disclaimer is below: Open Access funding provided by University College London: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0). This license permits copying and redistributing the work in any medium or format, as well as adapting the material for any purpose, even commercially.] Theories are among the most important tools of science. Lewin (1943) already noted "There is nothing as practical as a good theory." Although psychologists discussed problems of theory in their discipline for a long time, weak theories are still widespread in most subfields. One possible reason for this is that psychologists lack the tools to systematically assess the quality of their theories. Thagard (1989) developed a computational model for formal theory evaluation based on the concept of explanatory coherence. However, there are possible improvements to Thagard's (1989) model and it is not available in software that psychologists typically use. Therefore, we developed a new implementation of explanatory coherence based on the Ising model. We demonstrate the capabilities of this new Ising model of Explanatory Coherence (IMEC) on several examples from psychology and other sciences. In addition, we implemented it in the R-package IMEC to assist scientists in evaluating the quality of their theories in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Measurement is at the heart of scientific research. As many-perhaps most-psychological constructs cannot be directly observed, there is a steady demand for reliable self-report scales to assess latent constructs. However, scale development is a tedious process that requires researchers to produce good items in large quantities. In this tutorial, we introduce, explain, and apply the Psychometric Item Generator (PIG), an open-source, free-to-use, self-sufficient natural language processing algorithm that produces large-scale, human-like, customized text output within a few mouse clicks. The PIG is based on the GPT-2, a powerful generative language model, and runs on Google Colaboratory-an interactive virtual notebook environment that executes code on state-of-the-art virtual machines at no cost. Across two demonstrations and a preregistered five-pronged empirical validation with two Canadian samples (N_{Sample 1} = 501, N_{Sample 2} = 773), we show that the PIG is equally well-suited to generate large pools of face-valid items for novel constructs (i.e., wanderlust) and create parsimonious short scales of existing constructs (i.e., Big Five personality traits) that yield strong performances when tested in the wild and benchmarked against current gold standards for assessment. The PIG does not require any prior coding skills or access to computational resources and can easily be tailored to any desired context by simply switching out short linguistic prompts in a single line of code. In short, we present an effective, novel machine learning solution to an old psychological challenge. As such, the PIG will not require you to learn a new language-but instead, speak yours. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

artially nested designs (PNDs) are common in intervention studies in psychology and other social sciences. With this design, participants are assigned to treatment and control groups on an individual basis, but clustering occurs in some but not all groups (e.g., the treatment group). In recent years, there has been substantial development of methods for analyzing data from PNDs. However, little research has been done on causal inference for PNDs, especially for PNDs with nonrandomized treatment assignments. To reduce the research gap, in the current study, we used the expanded potential outcomes framework to define and identify the average causal treatment effects in PNDs. Based on the identification results, we formulated the outcome models that could produce treatment effect estimates with causal interpretation and evaluated how alternative model specifications affect the causal interpretation. We also developed an inverse propensity weighted (IPW) estimation approach and proposed a sandwich-type standard error estimator for the IPW-based estimate. Our simulation studies demonstrated that both the outcome modeling and the IPW methods specified following the identification results can yield satisfactory estimates and inferences of the average causal treatment effects. We applied the proposed approaches to data from a real-life pilot study of the Pregnant Moms' Empowerment Program for illustration. The current study provides guidance and insights on causal inference for PNDs and adds to researchers' toolbox of treatment effect estimation with PNDs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Comparison of nested models is common in applications of structural equation modeling (SEM). When two models are nested, model comparison can be done via a chi-square difference test or by comparing indices of approximate fit. The advantage of fit indices is that they permit some amount of misspecification in the additional constraints imposed on the model, which is a more realistic scenario. The most popular index of approximate fit is the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). In this article, we argue that the dominant way of comparing RMSEA values for two nested models, which is simply taking their difference, is problematic and will often mask misfit, particularly in model comparisons with large initial degrees of freedom. We instead advocate computing the RMSEA associated with the chi-square difference test, which we call RMSEA_D. We are not the first to propose this index, and we review numerous methodological articles that have suggested it. Nonetheless, these articles appear to have had little impact on actual practice. The modification of current practice that we call for may be particularly needed in the context of measurement invariance assessment. We illustrate the difference between the current approach and our advocated approach on three examples, where two involve multiple-group and longitudinal measurement invariance assessment and the third involves comparisons of models with different numbers of factors. We conclude with a discussion of recommendations and future research directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Careful consideration of the tradeoff between Type I and Type II error rates when designing experiments is critical for maximizing statistical decision accuracy. Typically, Type I error rates (e.g., .05) are significantly lower than Type II error rates (e.g., .20 for .80 power) in psychological science. Further, positive findings (true effects and Type I errors) are more likely to be the focus of replication. This conventional approach leads to very high rates of Type II error. Analyses show that increasing the Type I error rate to .10, thereby increasing power and decreasing the Type II error rate for each test, leads to higher overall rates of correct statistical decisions. This increase of Type I error rate is consistent with, and most beneficial in the context of, the replication and "New Statistics" movements in psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Bayesian hypothesis testing procedures have gained increased acceptance in recent years. A key advantage that Bayesian tests have over classical testing procedures is their potential to quantify information in support of true null hypotheses. Ironically, default implementations of Bayesian tests prevent the accumulation of strong evidence in favor of true null hypotheses because associated default alternative hypotheses assign a high probability to data that are most consistent with a null effect. We propose the use of "nonlocal" alternative hypotheses to resolve this paradox. The resulting class of Bayesian hypothesis tests permits more rapid accumulation of evidence in favor of both true null hypotheses and alternative hypotheses that are compatible with standardized effect sizes of most interest in psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Assessing measurement invariance is an important step in establishing a meaningful comparison of measurements of a latent construct across individuals or groups. Most recently, moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) has been proposed as a method to assess measurement invariance. In MNLFA models, measurement invariance is examined in a single-group confirmatory factor analysis model by means of parameter moderation. The advantages of MNLFA over other methods is that it (a) accommodates the assessment of measurement invariance across multiple continuous and categorical background variables and (b) accounts for heteroskedasticity by allowing the factor and residual variances to differ as a function of the background variables. In this article, we aim to make MNLFA more accessible to researchers without access to commercial structural equation modeling software by demonstrating how this method can be applied with the open-source R package OpenMx. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

We introduce a new meta-analysis estimator, the weighted and iterated least squares (WILS), that greatly reduces publication selection bias (PSB) when selective reporting for statistical significance (SSS) is present. WILS is the simple weighted average that has smaller bias and rates of false positives than conventional meta-analysis estimators, the unrestricted weighted least squares (UWLS), and the weighted average of the adequately powered (WAAP) when there is SSS. As a simple weighted average, it is not vulnerable to violations in publication bias corrections models' assumptions too often seen in application. WILS is based on the novel idea of allowing excess statistical significance (ESS), which is a necessary condition of SSS, to identify when and how to reduce PSB. We show in comparisons with large-scale preregistered replications and in evidence-based simulations that the remaining bias is small. The routine application of WILS in the place of random effects would do much to reduce conventional meta-analysis's notable biases and high rates of false positives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

In the social sciences, measurement scales often consist of ordinal items and are commonly analyzed using factor analysis. Either data are treated as continuous, or a discretization framework is imposed in order to take the ordinal scale properly into account. Correlational analysis is central in both approaches, and we review recent theory on correlations obtained from ordinal data. To ensure appropriate estimation, the item distributions prior to discretization should be (approximately) known, or the thresholds should be known to be equally spaced. We refer to such knowledge as substantive because it may not be extracted from the data, but must be rooted in expert knowledge about the data-generating process. An illustrative case is presented where absence of substantive knowledge of the item distributions inevitably leads the analyst to conclude that a truly two-dimensional case is perfectly one-dimensional. Additional studies probe the extent to which violation of the standard assumption of underlying normality leads to bias in correlations and factor models. As a remedy, we propose an adjusted polychoric estimator for ordinal factor analysis that takes substantive knowledge into account. Also, we demonstrate how to use the adjusted estimator in sensitivity analysis when the continuous item distributions are known only approximately. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).