↓ Skip to main content

Skew t Mixture Latent State-Trait Analysis: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study on Statistical Performance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Skew t Mixture Latent State-Trait Analysis: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study on Statistical Performance
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01323
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louisa Hohmann, Jana Holtmann, Michael Eid

Abstract

This simulation study assessed the statistical performance of a skew t mixture latent state-trait (LST) model for the analysis of longitudinal data. The model aims to identify interpretable latent classes with class-specific LST model parameters. A skew t-distribution within classes is allowed to account for non-normal outcomes. This flexible function covers heavy tails and may reduce the risk of identifying spurious classes, e.g., in case of outliers. Sample size, number of occasions and skewness of the trait variable were varied. Generally, parameter estimation accuracy increases with increasing numbers of observations and occasions. Larger bias compared to other parameters occurs for parameters referring to the skew t-distribution and variances of the latent trait variables. Standard error estimation accuracy shows diffuse patterns across conditions and parameters. Overall model performance is acceptable for large conditions, even though none of the models is free from bias. The application of the skew t mixture model in case of large numbers of occasions and observations may be possible, but results should be treated with caution. Moreover, the skew t approach may be useful for other mixture models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 31%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 38%
Decision Sciences 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Chemistry 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 31%
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 02 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,982,872
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,890
of 30,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,997
of 331,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#587
of 721 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 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 30,477 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 331,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 721 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.