↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Analysis Approaches for Latent Class Analysis with Auxiliary Linear Growth Model

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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 Analysis Approaches for Latent Class Analysis with Auxiliary Linear Growth Model
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00130
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akihito Kamata, Yusuf Kara, Chalie Patarapichayatham, Patrick Lan

Abstract

This study investigated the performance of three selected approaches to estimating a two-phase mixture model, where the first phase was a two-class latent class analysis model and the second phase was a linear growth model with four time points. The three evaluated methods were (a) one-step approach, (b) three-step approach, and (c) case-weight approach. As a result, some important results were demonstrated. First, the case-weight and three-step approaches demonstrated higher convergence rate than the one-step approach. Second, it was revealed that case-weight and three-step approaches generally did better in correct model selection than the one-step approach. Third, it was revealed that parameters were similarly recovered well by all three approaches for the larger class. However, parameter recovery for the smaller class differed between the three approaches. For example, the case-weight approach produced constantly lower empirical standard errors. However, the estimated standard errors were substantially underestimated by the case-weight and three-step approaches when class separation was low. Also, bias was substantially higher for the case-weight approach than the other two approaches.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 23%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 25 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,374,036
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,265
of 30,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,986
of 330,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#384
of 572 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,274 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 330,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 572 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.