An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Flora DB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3153362 | biostudies-literature | 2004 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data.
Flora David B DB Curran Patrick J PJ
Psychological methods 20041201 4
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is widely used for examining hypothesized relations among ordinal variables (e.g., Likert-type items). A theoretically appropriate method fits the CFA model to polychoric correlations using either weighted least squares (WLS) or robust WLS. Importantly, this approach assumes that a continuous, normal latent process determines each observed variable. The extent to which violations of this assumption undermine CFA estimation is not well-known. In this article, th ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Previous research has compared methods of estimation for fitting multilevel models to binary data, but there are reasons to believe that the results will not always generalize to the ordinal case. This article thus evaluates (a) whether and when fitting multilevel linear models to ordinal outcome data is justified and (b) which estimator to employ when instead fitting multilevel cumulative logit models to ordinal data, maximum likelihood (ML), or penalized quasi-likelihood (PQL). ML and PQL are compared across variations in sample size, magnitude of variance components, number of outcome categories, and distribution shape. Fitting a multilevel linear model to ordinal outcomes is shown to be inferior in virtually all circumstances. PQL performance improves markedly with the number of ordinal categories, regardless of distribution shape. In contrast to binary data, PQL often performs as well as ML when used with ordinal data. Further, the performance of PQL is typically superior to ML when the data include a small to moderate number of clusters (i.e., ≤ 50 clusters).
| S-EPMC3252624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Data artifacts due to variations in experimental handling are ubiquitous in microarray studies, and they can lead to biased and irreproducible findings. A popular approach to correct for such artifacts is through post hoc data adjustment such as data normalization. Statistical methods for data normalization have been developed and evaluated primarily for the discovery of individual molecular biomarkers. Their performance has rarely been studied for the development of multi-marker molecular classifiers-an increasingly important application of microarrays in the era of personalized medicine.Methods: In this study, we set out to evaluate the performance of three commonly used methods for data normalization in the context of molecular classification, using extensive simulations based on re-sampling from a unique pair of microRNA microarray datasets for the same set of samples. The data and code for our simulations are freely available as R packages at GitHub.Results: In the presence of confounding handling effects, all three normalization methods tended to improve the accuracy of the classifier when evaluated in an independent test data. The level of improvement and the relative performance among the normalization methods depended on the relative level of molecular signal, the distributional pattern of handling effects (e.g., location shift vs scale change), and the statistical method used for building the classifier. In addition, cross-validation was associated with biased estimation of classification accuracy in the over-optimistic direction for all three normalization methods.Conclusion: Normalization may improve the accuracy of molecular classification for data with confounding handling effects; however, it cannot circumvent the over-optimistic findings associated with cross-validation for assessing classification accuracy.
| S-EPMC5899419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeasonality classification is a well-known and important part of time series analysis. Understanding the seasonality of a biological event can contribute to an improved understanding of its causes and help guide appropriate responses. Observational data, however, are not comprised of biological events, but timestamped diagnosis codes the combination of which (along with additional requirements) are used as proxies for biological events. As there exist different methods for determining the seasonality of a time series, it is necessary to know if these methods exhibit concordance. In this study we seek to determine the concordance of these methods by applying them to time series derived from diagnosis codes in observational data residing in databases that vary in size, type, and provenance.MethodsWe compared 8 methods for determining the seasonality of a time series at three levels of significance (0.01, 0.05, and 0.1), against 10 observational health databases. We evaluated 61,467 time series at each level of significance, totaling 184,401 evaluations.ResultsAcross all databases and levels of significance, concordance ranged from 20.2 to 40.2%. Across all databases and levels of significance, the proportion of time series classified seasonal ranged from 4.9 to 88.3%. For each database and level of significance, we computed the difference between the maximum and minimum proportion of time series classified seasonal by all methods. The median within-database difference was 54.8, 34.7, and 39.8%, for p < 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1, respectively.ConclusionMethods of binary seasonality classification when applied to time series derived from diagnosis codes in observational health data produce inconsistent results. The methods exhibit considerable discord within all databases, implying that the discord is a result of the difference between the methods themselves and not due to the choice of database. The results indicate that researchers relying on automated methods to assess the seasonality of time series derived from diagnosis codes in observational data should be aware that the methods are not interchangeable and thus the choice of method can affect the generalizability of their work. Seasonality determination is highly dependent on the method chosen.
| S-EPMC9250712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As a commonly used tool for operationalizing measurement models, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) requires strong assumptions that can lead to a poor fit of the model to real data. The post hoc modification model approach attempts to improve CFA fit through the use of modification indexes for identifying significant correlated residual error terms. We analyzed a 28-item emotion measure collected for n = 175 participants. The post hoc modification approach indicated that 90 item-pair errors were significantly correlated, which demonstrated the challenge in using a modification index, as the error terms must be individually modified as a sequence. Additionally, the post hoc modification approach cannot guarantee a positive definite covariance matrix for the error terms. We propose a method that enables the entire inverse residual covariance matrix to be modeled as a sparse positive definite matrix that contains only a few off-diagonal elements bounded away from zero. This method circumvents the problem of having to handle correlated residual terms sequentially. By assigning a Lasso prior to the inverse covariance matrix, this Bayesian method achieves model parsimony as well as an identifiable model. Both simulated and real data sets were analyzed to evaluate the validity, robustness, and practical usefulness of the proposed procedure. (PsycINFO Database Record
| S-EPMC5745070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In numerous classification problems, class distribution is not balanced. For example, positive examples are rare in the fields of disease diagnosis and credit card fraud detection. General machine learning methods are known to be suboptimal for such imbalanced classification. One popular solution is to balance training data by oversampling the underrepresented (or undersampling the overrepresented) classes before applying machine learning algorithms. However, despite its popularity, the effectiveness of sampling has not been rigorously and comprehensively evaluated. This study assessed combinations of seven sampling methods and eight machine learning classifiers (56 varieties in total) using 31 datasets with varying degrees of imbalance. We used the areas under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) and receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) as the performance measures. The AUPRC is known to be more informative for imbalanced classification than the AUROC. We observed that sampling significantly changed the performance of the classifier (paired t-tests P < 0.05) only for few cases (12.2% in AUPRC and 10.0% in AUROC). Surprisingly, sampling was more likely to reduce rather than improve the classification performance. Moreover, the adverse effects of sampling were more pronounced in AUPRC than in AUROC. Among the sampling methods, undersampling performed worse than others. Also, sampling was more effective for improving linear classifiers. Most importantly, we did not need sampling to obtain the optimal classifier for most of the 31 datasets. In addition, we found two interesting examples in which sampling significantly reduced AUPRC while significantly improving AUROC (paired t-tests P < 0.05). In conclusion, the applicability of sampling is limited because it could be ineffective or even harmful. Furthermore, the choice of the performance measure is crucial for decision making. Our results provide valuable insights into the effect and characteristics of sampling for imbalanced classification.
| S-EPMC9333262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Genomic prediction (GP) is used in animal and plant breeding to help identify the best genotypes for selection. One of the most important measures of the effectiveness and reliability of GP in plant breeding is predictive accuracy. An accurate estimate of this measure is thus central to GP. Moreover, regression models are the models of choice for analyzing field trial data in plant breeding. However, models that use the classical likelihood typically perform poorly, often resulting in biased parameter estimates, when their underlying assumptions are violated. This typically happens when data are contaminated with outliers. These biases often translate into inaccurate estimates of heritability and predictive accuracy, compromising the performance of GP. Since phenotypic data are susceptible to contamination, improving the methods for estimating heritability and predictive accuracy can enhance the performance of GP. Robust statistical methods provide an intuitively appealing and a theoretically well justified framework for overcoming some of the drawbacks of classical regression, most notably the departure from the normality assumption. We compare the performance of robust and classical approaches to two recently published methods for estimating heritability and predictive accuracy of GP using simulation of several plausible scenarios of random and block data contamination with outliers and commercial maize and rye breeding datasets. RESULTS:The robust approach generally performed as good as or better than the classical approach in phenotypic data analysis and in estimating the predictive accuracy of heritability and genomic prediction under both the random and block contamination scenarios. Notably, it consistently outperformed the classical approach under the random contamination scenario. Analyses of the empirical maize and rye datasets further reinforce the stability and reliability of the robust approach in the presence of outliers or missing data. CONCLUSIONS:The proposed robust approach enhances the predictive accuracy of heritability and genomic prediction by minimizing the deleterious effects of outliers for a broad range of simulation scenarios and empirical breeding datasets. Accordingly, plant breeders should seriously consider regularly using the robust alongside the classical approach and increasing the number of replicates to three or more, to further enhance the accuracy of the robust approach.
| S-EPMC6958597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To illustrate the use of ensemble tree-based methods (random forest classification [RFC] and bagging) for propensity score estimation and to compare these methods with logistic regression, in the context of evaluating the effect of physical and occupational therapy on preschool motor ability among very low birth weight (VLBW) children.We used secondary data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) between 2001 and 2006.We estimated the predicted probability of treatment using tree-based methods and logistic regression (LR). We then modeled the exposure-outcome relation using weighted LR models while considering covariate balance and precision for each propensity score estimation method.Among approximately 500 VLBW children, therapy receipt was associated with moderately improved preschool motor ability. Overall, ensemble methods produced the best covariate balance (Mean Squared Difference: 0.03-0.07) and the most precise effect estimates compared to LR (Mean Squared Difference: 0.11). The overall magnitude of the effect estimates was similar between RFC and LR estimation methods.Propensity score estimation using RFC and bagging produced better covariate balance with increased precision compared to LR. Ensemble methods are a useful alterative to logistic regression to control confounding in observational studies.
| S-EPMC3796115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In confirmatory clinical trials, the prespecification of the primary analysis model is a universally accepted scientific principle to allow strict control of the type I error. Consequently, both the ICH E9 guideline and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) guideline on missing data in confirmatory clinical trials require that the primary analysis model is defined unambiguously. This requirement applies to mixed models for longitudinal data handling missing data implicitly. To evaluate the compliance with the EMA guideline, we evaluated the model specifications in those clinical study protocols from development phases II and III submitted between 2015 and 2018 to the Ethics Committee at Hannover Medical School under the German Medicinal Products Act, which planned to use a mixed model for longitudinal data in the confirmatory testing strategy. Overall, 39 trials from different types of sponsors and a wide range of therapeutic areas were evaluated. While nearly all protocols specify the fixed and random effects of the analysis model (95%), only 77% give the structure of the covariance matrix used for modeling the repeated measurements. Moreover, the testing method (36%), the estimation method (28%), the computation method (3%), and the fallback strategy (18%) are given by less than half the study protocols. Subgroup analyses indicate that these findings are universal and not specific to clinical trial phases or size of company. Altogether, our results show that guideline compliance is to various degrees poor and consequently, strict type I error rate control at the intended level is not guaranteed.
| S-EPMC6899721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are many options in handling microarray data that can affect study conclusions, sometimes drastically. Working with a two-color platform, this study uses ten spike-in microarray experiments to evaluate the relative effectiveness of some of these options for the experimental goal of detecting differential expression. We consider two data transformations, background subtraction and intensity normalization, as well as six different statistics for detecting differentially expressed genes. Findings support the use of an intensity-based normalization procedure and also indicate that local background subtraction can be detrimental for effectively detecting differential expression. We also verify that robust statistics outperform t-statistics in identifying differentially expressed genes when there are few replicates. Finally, we find that choice of image analysis software can also substantially influence experimental conclusions.
| S-EPMC524279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In stroke studies, ordinal logistic regression (OLR) is often used to analyze outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), whereas the non-parametric Mann-Whitney measure of superiority (MWS) has also been suggested. It is unclear how these perform comparatively when confounding adjustment is warranted. AIMS:Our aim is to quantify the performance of OLR and MWS in different confounding variable settings. METHODS:We set up a simulation study with three different scenarios; (1) dichotomous confounding variables, (2) continuous confounding variables, and (3) confounding variable settings mimicking a study on functional outcome after stroke. We compared adjusted ordinal logistic regression (aOLR) and stratified Mann-Whitney measure of superiority (sMWS), and also used propensity scores to stratify the MWS (psMWS). For comparability, OLR estimates were transformed to a MWS. We report bias, the percentage of runs that produced a point estimate deviating by more than 0.05 points (point estimate variation), and the coverage probability. RESULTS:In scenario 1, there was no bias in both sMWS and aOLR, with similar point estimate variation and coverage probabilities. In scenario 2, sMWS resulted in more bias (0.04 versus 0.00), and higher point estimate variation (41.6% versus 3.3%), whereas coverage probabilities were similar. In scenario 3, there was no bias in both methods, point estimate variation was higher in the sMWS (6.7%) versus aOLR (1.1%), and coverage probabilities were 0.98 (sMWS) versus 0.95 (aOLR). With psMWS, bias remained 0.00, with less point estimate variation (1.5%) and a coverage probability of 0.95. CONCLUSIONS:The bias of both adjustment methods was similar in our stroke simulation scenario, and the higher point estimate variation in the MWS improved with propensity score based stratification. The stratified MWS is a valid alternative for adjusted OLR only when the ratio of number of strata versus number of observations is relatively low, but propensity score based stratification extends the application range of the MWS.
| S-EPMC7162480 | biostudies-literature