MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042438175 · doi:10.1037/met0000336

An approach to structural equation modeling with both factors and components: Integrated generalized structured component analysis.

2020· article· en· W3042438175 on OpenAlexaff
Heungsun Hwang, Gyeongcheol Cho, Kwanghee Jung, Carl F. Falk, Jessica Kay Flake, Min Jin Jin, Seung‐Hwan Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Methods · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsStructural equation modelingComponent (thermodynamics)Path analysis (statistics)Component analysisFactor analysisFactor (programming language)EconometricsComputer scienceData miningStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we propose integrated generalized structured component analysis (IGSCA), which is a general statistical approach for analyzing data with both components and factors in the same model, simultaneously. This approach combines generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) and generalized structured component analysis with measurement errors incorporated (GSCAM) in a unified manner and can estimate both factor- and component-model parameters, including component and factor loadings, component and factor path coefficients, and path coefficients connecting factors and components. We conduct 2 simulation studies to investigate the performance of IGSCA under models with both factors and components. The first simulation study assesses how existing approaches for structural equation modeling and IGSCA recover parameters. This study shows that only consistent partial least squares (PLSc) and IGSCA yield unbiased estimates of all parameters, whereas the other approaches always provided biased estimates of several parameters. As such, we conduct a second, extensive simulation study to evaluate the relative performance of the 2 competitors (PLSc and IGSCA), considering a variety of experimental factors (model specification, sample size, the number of indicators per factor/component, and exogenous factor/component correlation). IGSCA exhibits better performance than PLSc under most conditions. We also present a real data application of IGSCA to the study of genes and their influence on depression. Finally, we discuss the implications and limitations of this approach, and recommendations for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations78
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MethodsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Modeling TechniquesFrench-language works237,207