↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating Fit Indices for Multivariate t-Based Structural Equation Modeling with Data Contamination

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Evaluating Fit Indices for Multivariate t-Based Structural Equation Modeling with Data Contamination
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01286
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark H. C. Lai, Jiaqi Zhang

Abstract

In conventional structural equation modeling (SEM), with the presence of even a tiny amount of data contamination due to outliers or influential observations, normal-theory maximum likelihood (ML-Normal) is not efficient and can be severely biased. The multivariate-t-based SEM, which recently got implemented in Mplus as an approach for mixture modeling, represents a robust estimation alternative to downweigh the impact of outliers and influential observations. To our knowledge, the use of maximum likelihood estimation with a multivariate-t model (ML-t) to handle outliers has not been shown in SEM literature. In this paper we demonstrate the use of ML-t using the classic Holzinger and Swineford (1939) data set with a few observations modified as outliers or influential observations. A simulation study is then conducted to examine the performance of fit indices and information criteria under ML-Normal and ML-t in the presence of outliers. Results showed that whereas all fit indices got worse for ML-Normal with increasing amount of outliers and influential observations, their values were relatively stable with ML-t, and the use of information criteria was effective in selecting ML-normal without data contamination and selecting ML-t with data contamination, especially when the sample size was at least 200.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 30%
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 6 22%
Psychology 6 22%
Social Sciences 4 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 26%
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 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,560,904
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,434
of 30,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,534
of 316,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#472
of 564 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,186 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 316,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 564 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.