MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118846274 · doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.919819

Effect Size, Statistical Power, and Sample Size Requirements for the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test in Latent Class Analysis

2014· article· en· W2118846274 on OpenAlexaff
John J. Dziak, Stephanie T. Lanza, Xianming Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsSample size determinationStatisticsLatent class modelStatistical powerLikelihood-ratio testMathematicsSample (material)PopulationMonte Carlo methodEconometricsClass (philosophy)Type I and type II errorsPower (physics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selecting the number of different classes that will be assumed to exist in the population is an important step in latent class analysis (LCA). The bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT) provides a data-driven way to evaluate the relative adequacy of a (K – 1)-class model compared to a K-class model. However, very little is known about how to predict the power or the required sample size for the BLRT in LCA. Based on extensive Monte Carlo simulations, we provide practical effect size measures and power curves that can be used to predict power for the BLRT in LCA given a proposed sample size and a set of hypothesized population parameters. Estimated power curves and tables provide guidance for researchers wishing to size a study to have sufficient power to detect hypothesized underlying latent classes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.152
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.604
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1520.604
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations456
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary JournalSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207