Estimating longitudinal change in latent variable means: a comparison of non-negative matrix factorization and other item non-response methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of longitudinal change in the parameters of latent (i.e. unobserved) variables, including means, are affected by non-response on the items or indicators of the latent variable. This study used Monte Carlo simulation and a numeric example to compare four ordinal item non-response methods: non-negative matrix factorization (NNMF), multiple imputation with conditional proportional odds model (POM), full information maximum likelihood (FIML) and complete-case analysis, when estimating the longitudinal change in latent variable means. The mean squared error for the NNMF method was more than 40% lower than for the FIML and POM methods when the latent variable correlations over time were strong, percentage of missing data was 25% or more, and sample size was large. The NNMF method is a promising method to address item non-response. It is relatively efficient when sample size is large, and the percentage of missing data is high but has limitations under other data-analytic conditions.
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 | 0.097 | 0.284 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".