Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.31523/glmj.046001.004
R. Schumacker, Lauren F. Holmes
A true experimental design requires random selection and random assignment of subjects to control and experimental groups. A hypothesized statistically significant mean difference in the dependent variable between these two groups is typically specified. This methodology is also referred to as a randomized clinical trial when testing for group differences. Individual differences are generally not considered, rather the focus is on the average control group and experimental group difference. This article offers another approach that illustrates testing for individual differences over time. h e true experimental design conducts a test of control group versus experimental group average dependent variable difference using analysis of variance statistical tests (Maxwell & Delaney, 2004). This methodology is also referred to as a randomized clinical trial when testing for group mean differences (Machin & Fayers, 2010). Oftentimes a true experimental design is not possible, so the researcher uses a quasi-experimental design. A quasi-experimental design uses a comparison group rather than a control group. The typical quasi-experimental design considers a pre-test measure, followed by treatment, and then a similar post-test measure for the subjects in the comparison group and the experimental group. In the statistical analysis, individual post-test measure differences are adjusted for individual pre-test measure differences to control for bias. This adjustment is referred to as analysis of covariance and expressed in the general linear model as: are
{"title":"Testing Individual vs Group Mean Differences in Social Science Research","authors":"R. Schumacker, Lauren F. Holmes","doi":"10.31523/glmj.046001.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31523/glmj.046001.004","url":null,"abstract":"A true experimental design requires random selection and random assignment of subjects to control and experimental groups. A hypothesized statistically significant mean difference in the dependent variable between these two groups is typically specified. This methodology is also referred to as a randomized clinical trial when testing for group differences. Individual differences are generally not considered, rather the focus is on the average control group and experimental group difference. This article offers another approach that illustrates testing for individual differences over time. h e true experimental design conducts a test of control group versus experimental group average dependent variable difference using analysis of variance statistical tests (Maxwell & Delaney, 2004). This methodology is also referred to as a randomized clinical trial when testing for group mean differences (Machin & Fayers, 2010). Oftentimes a true experimental design is not possible, so the researcher uses a quasi-experimental design. A quasi-experimental design uses a comparison group rather than a control group. The typical quasi-experimental design considers a pre-test measure, followed by treatment, and then a similar post-test measure for the subjects in the comparison group and the experimental group. In the statistical analysis, individual post-test measure differences are adjusted for individual pre-test measure differences to control for bias. This adjustment is referred to as analysis of covariance and expressed in the general linear model as: are","PeriodicalId":259786,"journal":{"name":"General Linear Model Journal","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116236046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.31523/glmj.044002.003
W. H. Finch
Comparison of Measurement Invariance Testing using Penalized Likelihood and Maximum Likelihood Estimators: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study W. Holmes Finch Ball State University Invariance testing remains a widely used and important issue for social scientists. At its heart, assessment of factor invariance involves an examination of the suitability of a scale’s use across an entire population. Traditionally, invariance testing has been carried out using a Chi-square difference test in conjunction with multiple group confirmatory factor analysis. However, research has demonstrated that this approach can result in inflated Type I error rates, or findings of a lack of invariance when in fact invariance is present. As a result, statisticians and methodologists have been investigating alternative approaches to testing invariance, which control the Type I error rate without sacrificing much in terms of power. The current study investigated one such alternative, based on a penalized likelihood estimator. This estimator has been previously investigated in the context of fitting structural equation models, and found to perform well in terms of parameter estimation accuracy. Results of the current Monte Carlo simulation study found that the PLE approach is in fact promising in the context of invariance assessment. It was able to control the Type I error rate better than did the Chi-square test, and it exhibited power rates that were as good as or better than those of the Chi-square. Implications of these findings are discussed. he invariance of latent variable models is an important issue in a wide variety of fields within the social sciences. Invariance refers to the case where latent variable model parameters, such as factor loadings, factor intercepts, or error variances, are equivalent across subgroups within the population. It is key for users of educational and psychological scales, as its presence allows for the use of such instruments with the entire population of interest. On the other hand, when invariance cannot be demonstrated, users of the scale cannot be certain that scores produced by it have the same meaning across subgroups, such as different ethnic groups, genders, or individuals with different socioeconomic status (Dorans, & Cook, 2016; Millsap, 2011; Wu, Li, & Zumbo, 2007). Thus, researchers who do plan to use scales with broad populations of individuals need to demonstrate scale invariance. The investigation of latent trait model parameter invariance typically involves the use of multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). In this paradigm, the fit of models with, and without group equality constraints on the model parameters are compared, and if the fit of the models differs, we conclude that invariance does not hold (Millsap, 2011). Perhaps the most common statistical approach used in such invariance assessment involves the calculation of the Chi-square difference statistic, which is discussed in more detail below. However, r
{"title":"Comparison of Measurement Invariance Testing using Penalized Likelihood and Maximum Likelihood Estimators: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study","authors":"W. H. Finch","doi":"10.31523/glmj.044002.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31523/glmj.044002.003","url":null,"abstract":"Comparison of Measurement Invariance Testing using Penalized Likelihood and Maximum Likelihood Estimators: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study W. Holmes Finch Ball State University Invariance testing remains a widely used and important issue for social scientists. At its heart, assessment of factor invariance involves an examination of the suitability of a scale’s use across an entire population. Traditionally, invariance testing has been carried out using a Chi-square difference test in conjunction with multiple group confirmatory factor analysis. However, research has demonstrated that this approach can result in inflated Type I error rates, or findings of a lack of invariance when in fact invariance is present. As a result, statisticians and methodologists have been investigating alternative approaches to testing invariance, which control the Type I error rate without sacrificing much in terms of power. The current study investigated one such alternative, based on a penalized likelihood estimator. This estimator has been previously investigated in the context of fitting structural equation models, and found to perform well in terms of parameter estimation accuracy. Results of the current Monte Carlo simulation study found that the PLE approach is in fact promising in the context of invariance assessment. It was able to control the Type I error rate better than did the Chi-square test, and it exhibited power rates that were as good as or better than those of the Chi-square. Implications of these findings are discussed. he invariance of latent variable models is an important issue in a wide variety of fields within the social sciences. Invariance refers to the case where latent variable model parameters, such as factor loadings, factor intercepts, or error variances, are equivalent across subgroups within the population. It is key for users of educational and psychological scales, as its presence allows for the use of such instruments with the entire population of interest. On the other hand, when invariance cannot be demonstrated, users of the scale cannot be certain that scores produced by it have the same meaning across subgroups, such as different ethnic groups, genders, or individuals with different socioeconomic status (Dorans, & Cook, 2016; Millsap, 2011; Wu, Li, & Zumbo, 2007). Thus, researchers who do plan to use scales with broad populations of individuals need to demonstrate scale invariance. The investigation of latent trait model parameter invariance typically involves the use of multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). In this paradigm, the fit of models with, and without group equality constraints on the model parameters are compared, and if the fit of the models differs, we conclude that invariance does not hold (Millsap, 2011). Perhaps the most common statistical approach used in such invariance assessment involves the calculation of the Chi-square difference statistic, which is discussed in more detail below. However, r","PeriodicalId":259786,"journal":{"name":"General Linear Model Journal","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128677668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.31523/glmj.046001.001
W. H. Finch
{"title":"SEM Estimation in the Context of Small Samples: Comparison of Latent Variable Models, Single Indicator, Regularized 2-Stage Least Squares and Observed Variable Models","authors":"W. H. Finch","doi":"10.31523/glmj.046001.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31523/glmj.046001.001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":259786,"journal":{"name":"General Linear Model Journal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123569417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.31523/glmj.045001.003
W. H. Finch
{"title":"A Comparison of Clustering Methods when Group Sizes are Unequal, Outliers are Present, and in the Presence of Noise Variables","authors":"W. H. Finch","doi":"10.31523/glmj.045001.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31523/glmj.045001.003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":259786,"journal":{"name":"General Linear Model Journal","volume":"168 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115172482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.31523/glmj.046001.002
Pornchanok Ruengvirayudh, Gordon Brooks
{"title":"Sample Size for Parallel Analysis and Not-So-Common Criteria for Dimensions in Factor Analysis: Modifying the Eigenvalue > 1 Kaiser Rule","authors":"Pornchanok Ruengvirayudh, Gordon Brooks","doi":"10.31523/glmj.046001.002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31523/glmj.046001.002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":259786,"journal":{"name":"General Linear Model Journal","volume":"284 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131695201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：