↓ Skip to main content

Modeling competence development in the presence of selection bias

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, February 2018
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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Modeling competence development in the presence of selection bias
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, February 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13428-018-1021-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabine Zinn, Timo Gnambs

Abstract

A major challenge for representative longitudinal studies is panel attrition, because some respondents refuse to continue participating across all measurement waves. Depending on the nature of this selection process, statistical inferences based on the observed sample can be biased. Therefore, statistical analyses need to consider a missing-data mechanism. Because each missing-data model hinges on frequently untestable assumptions, sensitivity analyses are indispensable to gauging the robustness of statistical inferences. This article highlights contemporary approaches for applied researchers to acknowledge missing data in longitudinal, multilevel modeling and shows how sensitivity analyses can guide their interpretation. Using a representative sample of N = 13,417 German students, the development of mathematical competence across three years was examined by contrasting seven missing-data models, including listwise deletion, full-information maximum likelihood estimation, inverse probability weighting, multiple imputation, selection models, and pattern mixture models. These analyses identified strong selection effects related to various individual and context factors. Comparative analyses revealed that inverse probability weighting performed rather poorly in growth curve modeling. Moreover, school-specific effects should be acknowledged in missing-data models for educational data. Finally, we demonstrated how sensitivity analyses can be used to gauge the robustness of the identified effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 25%
Social Sciences 7 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 12 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 08 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,241,329
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#519
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,287
of 470,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#12
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 470,360 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 59% of its contemporaries.