The performance of robust test statistics with categorical data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a simulation study that evaluated the performance of five structural equation model test statistics appropriate for categorical data. Both Type I error rate and power were investigated. Different model sizes, sample sizes, numbers of categories, and threshold distributions were considered. Statistics associated with both the diagonally weighted least squares (cat-DWLS) estimator and with the unweighted least squares (cat-ULS) estimator were studied. Recent research suggests that cat-ULS parameter estimates and robust standard errors slightly outperform cat-DWLS estimates and robust standard errors (Forero, Maydeu-Olivares, & Gallardo-Pujol, 2009). The findings of the present research suggest that the mean- and variance-adjusted test statistic associated with the cat-ULS estimator performs best overall. A new version of this statistic now exists that does not require a degrees-of-freedom adjustment (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010), and this statistic is recommended. Overall, the cat-ULS estimator is recommended over cat-DWLS, particularly in small to medium sample sizes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.113 | 0.446 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".