New computations for RMSEA and CFI following FIML and TS estimation with missing data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) is a popular estimation method for missing data in structural equation modeling (SEM). However, previous research has shown that SEM approximate fit indices (AFIs) such as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI) can be distorted relative to their complete data counterparts when they are computed following the FIML estimation. The main goal of the current paper is to propose and examine an alternative approach for computing AFIs following the FIML estimation, which we refer to as the FIML-corrected or FIML-C approach. The secondary goal of the article is to examine another existing estimation method, the two-stage (TS) approach, for computing AFIs in the presence of missing data. Both FIML-C and TS approaches remove the bias due to missing data, so that the resulting incomplete data AFIs estimate the same population values as their complete data counterparts. For both approaches, we also propose a series of small sample corrections to improve the estimates of AFIs. In two simulation studies, we found that the FIML-C and TS approaches, when implemented with small sample corrections, estimated the population-complete-data AFIs with little bias across a variety of conditions, although the FIML-C approach can fail in a small number of conditions with a high percentage of missing data and a high degree of model misspecification. In contrast, the FIML AFIs as currently computed often performed poorly. We recommend FIML-C and TS approaches for computing AFIs in SEM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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 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 | 0.032 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".