Reporting results of latent growth modeling and multilevel modeling analyses: Some recommendations for rehabilitation psychology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There has been a general increase in interest and use of modeling techniques that treat data as nested, whether it is people nested within larger units, such as families or treatment centers, or observations nested under people. The popularity can be witnessed by noting the number of new textbooks and articles related to latent growth curve modeling and multilevel modeling. This paper discusses both of these techniques in the context of longitudinal research designs, with the main purposes of highlighting some benefits and issues related to the use of these models and outlining guidelines for reporting results from studies using multilevel modeling or latent growth modeling. IMPLICATIONS: These longitudinal analytic techniques can be greatly beneficial to researchers conducting rehabilitation studies, but there are several issues related to their use and reporting that need to be taken into consideration.
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 | 0.434 | 0.762 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".