Recommendations on the Sample Sizes for Multilevel Latent Class Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multilevel latent class model (MLCM) is a useful tool for analyzing data arising from hierarchically nested structures. One important issue for MLCMs is determining the minimum sample sizes needed to obtain reliable and unbiased results. In this simulation study, the sample sizes required for MLCMs were investigated under various conditions. A series of design factors, including sample sizes at two levels, the distinctness and the complexity of the latent structure, and the number of indicators were manipulated. The results revealed that larger samples are required when the latent classes are less distinct and more complex with fewer indicators. This study also provides recommendations about the minimum required sample sizes that satisfied all four criteria-model selection accuracy, parameter estimation bias, standard error bias, and coverage rate-as well as rules of thumb for sample size requirements when applying MLCMs in data analysis.
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 | 0.189 | 0.618 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".