↓ Skip to main content

A cautionary note on testing latent variable models

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
A cautionary note on testing latent variable models
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01715
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ivan Ropovik

Abstract

The article tackles the practice of testing latent variable models. The analysis covered recently published studies from 11 psychology journals varying in orientation and impact. Seventy-five studies that matched the criterion of applying some of the latent modeling techniques were reviewed. Results indicate the presence of a general tendency to ignore the model test (χ(2)) followed by the acceptance of approximate fit hypothesis without detailed model examination yielding relevant empirical evidence. Due to reduced sensitivity of such a procedure to confront theory with data, there is an almost invariable tendency to accept the theoretical model. This absence of model test consequences, manifested in frequently unsubstantiated neglect of evidence speaking against the model, thus implies the perilous question of whether such empirical testing of latent structures (the way it is widely applied) makes sense at all.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
Unknown 110 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 19%
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Professor 8 7%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 41%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 27 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 09 March 2021.
All research outputs
#4,583,141
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,427
of 29,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,830
of 285,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#134
of 497 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 285,670 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 497 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 72% of its contemporaries.