↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of model fit in nonlinear multilevel structural equation modeling

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Evaluation of model fit in nonlinear multilevel structural equation modeling
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karin Schermelleh-Engel, Martin Kerwer, Andreas G. Klein

Abstract

Evaluating model fit in nonlinear multilevel structural equation models (MSEM) presents a challenge as no adequate test statistic is available. Nevertheless, using a product indicator approach a likelihood ratio test for linear models is provided which may also be useful for nonlinear MSEM. The main problem with nonlinear models is that product variables are non-normally distributed. Although robust test statistics have been developed for linear SEM to ensure valid results under the condition of non-normality, they have not yet been investigated for nonlinear MSEM. In a Monte Carlo study, the performance of the robust likelihood ratio test was investigated for models with single-level latent interaction effects using the unconstrained product indicator approach. As overall model fit evaluation has a potential limitation in detecting the lack of fit at a single level even for linear models, level-specific model fit evaluation was also investigated using partially saturated models. Four population models were considered: a model with interaction effects at both levels, an interaction effect at the within-group level, an interaction effect at the between-group level, and a model with no interaction effects at both levels. For these models the number of groups, predictor correlation, and model misspecification was varied. The results indicate that the robust test statistic performed sufficiently well. Advantages of level-specific model fit evaluation for the detection of model misfit are demonstrated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
United Kingdom 2 4%
Singapore 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 47 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Professor 3 6%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 20%
Psychology 10 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 17%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 11 20%
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 07 April 2014.
All research outputs
#18,370,767
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,008
of 29,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,897
of 221,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#123
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 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 29,641 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 221,291 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.