↓ Skip to main content

Model Fit after Pairwise Maximum Likelihood

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

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
Model Fit after Pairwise Maximum Likelihood
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00528
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. T. Barendse, R. Ligtvoet, M. E. Timmerman, F. J. Oort

Abstract

Maximum likelihood factor analysis of discrete data within the structural equation modeling framework rests on the assumption that the observed discrete responses are manifestations of underlying continuous scores that are normally distributed. As maximizing the likelihood of multivariate response patterns is computationally very intensive, the sum of the log-likelihoods of the bivariate response patterns is maximized instead. Little is yet known about how to assess model fit when the analysis is based on such a pairwise maximum likelihood (PML) of two-way contingency tables. We propose new fit criteria for the PML method and conduct a simulation study to evaluate their performance in model selection. With large sample sizes (500 or more), PML performs as well the robust weighted least squares analysis of polychoric correlations.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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 %
United States 1 8%
Germany 1 8%
Unknown 10 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 33%
Other 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 42%
Linguistics 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%