↓ Skip to main content

Latent Class Analysis: An Alternative Perspective on Subgroup Analysis in Prevention and Treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
809 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
662 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Latent Class Analysis: An Alternative Perspective on Subgroup Analysis in Prevention and Treatment
Published in
Prevention Science, February 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie T. Lanza, Brittany L. Rhoades

Abstract

The overall goal of this study is to introduce latent class analysis (LCA) as an alternative approach to latent subgroup analysis. Traditionally, subgroup analysis aims to determine whether individuals respond differently to a treatment based on one or more measured characteristics. LCA provides a way to identify a small set of underlying subgroups characterized by multiple dimensions which could, in turn, be used to examine differential treatment effects. This approach can help to address methodological challenges that arise in subgroup analysis, including a high Type I error rate, low statistical power, and limitations in examining higher-order interactions. An empirical example draws on N = 1,900 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health. Six characteristics (household poverty, single-parent status, peer cigarette use, peer alcohol use, neighborhood unemployment, and neighborhood poverty) are used to identify five latent subgroups: Low Risk, Peer Risk, Economic Risk, Household & Peer Risk, and Multi-Contextual Risk. Two approaches for examining differential treatment effects are demonstrated using a simulated outcome: 1) a classify-analyze approach and, 2) a model-based approach based on a reparameterization of the LCA with covariates model. Such approaches can facilitate targeting future intervention resources to subgroups that promise to show the maximum treatment response.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 662 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 2%
Uganda 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 646 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 141 21%
Researcher 112 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 78 12%
Student > Master 67 10%
Professor 29 4%
Other 110 17%
Unknown 125 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 145 22%
Social Sciences 133 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 69 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 2%
Other 91 14%
Unknown 192 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,650,143
of 25,838,141 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#253
of 1,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,082
of 198,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,838,141 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 198,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.