MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255033255 · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1401_5

Multiplicity Control in Structural Equation Modeling

2007· article· en· W4255033255 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Cribbie

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsType I and type II errorsMultiplicity (mathematics)Statistical powerSample size determinationFalse discovery rateStatisticsMultiple comparisons problemMathematicsStructural equation modelingComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers conducting structural equation modeling analyses rarely, if ever, control for the inflated probability of Type I errors when evaluating the statistical significance of multiple parameters in a model. In this study, the Type I error control, power and true model rates of famsilywise and false discovery rate controlling procedures were compared with rates when no multiplicity control was imposed. The results indicate that Type I error rates become severely inflated with no multiplicity control, but also that familywise error controlling procedures were extremely conservative and had very little power for detecting true relations. False discovery rate controlling procedures provided a compromise between no multiplicity control and strict familywise error control and with large sample sizes provided a high probability of making correct inferences regarding all the parameters in the model.

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)0.327
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.774
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3270.774
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.398
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.073 · 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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary JournalSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207