MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737207667 · doi:10.4236/psych.2017.89086

Best Practice Recommendations for Using Structural Equation Modelling in Psychological Research

2017· article· en· W2737207667 on OpenAlexafffund
Todd G. Morrison, Melanie A. Morrison, Jessica McCutcheon

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural equation modelingPsychologyApplied psychologySubject (documents)Best practiceSocial psychologyManagement scienceComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although structural equation modelling (SEM) is a popular analytic technique in the social sciences, it remains subject to misuse. The purposes of this paper are to assist psychologists interested in using SEM by: 1) providing a brief overview of this method; and 2) describing best practice recommendations for testing models and reporting findings. We also outline several resources that psychologists with limited familiarity about SEM may find helpful.

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)0.281
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.589
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2810.589
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0140.017
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0150.018
Open science0.0090.011
Research integrity0.0140.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.011

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 head0.816
GPT teacher head0.707
Teacher spread0.109 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations96
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207