↓ Skip to main content

Investigating bias in squared regression structure coefficients

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Investigating bias in squared regression structure coefficients
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00949
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim F. Nimon, Linda R. Zientek, Bruce Thompson

Abstract

The importance of structure coefficients and analogs of regression weights for analysis within the general linear model (GLM) has been well-documented. The purpose of this study was to investigate bias in squared structure coefficients in the context of multiple regression and to determine if a formula that had been shown to correct for bias in squared Pearson correlation coefficients and coefficients of determination could be used to correct for bias in squared regression structure coefficients. Using data from a Monte Carlo simulation, this study found that squared regression structure coefficients corrected with Pratt's formula produced less biased estimates and might be more accurate and stable estimates of population squared regression structure coefficients than estimates with no such corrections. While our findings are in line with prior literature that identified multicollinearity as a predictor of bias in squared regression structure coefficients but not coefficients of determination, the findings from this study are unique in that the level of predictive power, number of predictors, and sample size were also observed to contribute bias in squared regression structure coefficients.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Macao 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Professor 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 19%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Linguistics 1 6%
Other 5 31%
Unknown 3 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,765,638
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,436
of 29,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,308
of 262,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#433
of 552 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,760 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 262,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 552 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.