↓ Skip to main content

Group membership prediction when known groups consist of unknown subgroups: a Monte Carlo comparison of methods

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Group membership prediction when known groups consist of unknown subgroups: a Monte Carlo comparison of methods
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00337
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. Holmes Finch, Jocelyn H. Bolin, Ken Kelley

Abstract

Classification using standard statistical methods such as linear discriminant analysis (LDA) or logistic regression (LR) presume knowledge of group membership prior to the development of an algorithm for prediction. However, in many real world applications members of the same nominal group, might in fact come from different subpopulations on the underlying construct. For example, individuals diagnosed with depression will not all have the same levels of this disorder, though for the purposes of LDA or LR they will be treated in the same manner. The goal of this simulation study was to examine the performance of several methods for group classification in the case where within group membership was not homogeneous. For example, suppose there are 3 known groups but within each group two unknown classes. Several approaches were compared, including LDA, LR, classification and regression trees (CART), generalized additive models (GAM), and mixture discriminant analysis (MIXDA). Results of the study indicated that CART and mixture discriminant analysis were the most effective tools for situations in which known groups were not homogeneous, whereas LDA, LR, and GAM had the highest rates of misclassification. Implications of these results for theory and practice are discussed.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

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

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 21%
Professor 5 21%
Student > Master 3 13%
Researcher 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 33%
Computer Science 4 17%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 21%
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 20 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,230,558
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,959
of 29,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,910
of 226,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#308
of 346 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,663 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 226,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 346 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.