↓ Skip to main content

Normal Theory GLS Estimator for Missing Data: An Application to Item-Level Missing Data and a Comparison to Two-Stage ML

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Normal Theory GLS Estimator for Missing Data: An Application to Item-Level Missing Data and a Comparison to Two-Stage ML
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00767
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria Savalei, Mijke Rhemtulla

Abstract

Structural equation models (SEMs) can be estimated using a variety of methods. For complete normally distributed data, two asymptotically efficient estimation methods exist: maximum likelihood (ML) and generalized least squares (GLS). With incomplete normally distributed data, an extension of ML called "full information" ML (FIML), is often the estimation method of choice. An extension of GLS to incomplete normally distributed data has never been developed or studied. In this article we define the "full information" GLS estimator for incomplete normally distributed data (FIGLS). We also identify and study an important application of the new GLS approach. In many modeling contexts, the variables in the SEM are linear composites (e.g., sums or averages) of the raw items. For instance, SEMs often use parcels (sums of raw items) as indicators of latent factors. If data are missing at the item level, but the model is at the composite level, FIML is not possible. In this situation, FIGLS may be the only asymptotically efficient estimator available. Results of a simulation study comparing the new FIGLS estimator to the best available analytic alternative, two-stage ML, with item-level missing data are presented.

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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 25%
Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 33%
Social Sciences 2 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 17%
Mathematics 1 8%
Environmental Science 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,936,169
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,220
of 30,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,782
of 313,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#420
of 601 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 313,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 601 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.