Comparing Factor Score Approaches to SEM in Multigroup Models with Small Samples
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Factor Score Regression (FSR) is increasingly employed as an alternative to structural equation modeling (SEM) in small samples. Despite its popularity in psychology, the performance of FSR in multigroup models with small samples remains relatively unknown. The goal of this study was to examine the performance of FSR, namely Croon’s correction and the bias avoiding method, for multigroup models with small samples and compare the methods to SEM. We conducted two simulation studies to evaluate how the sample size, proportion of invariant items, reliability, number of indicators, and measurement model misspecifications affect conclusions about the structural relationships in multigroup models. Additionally, we extended the methods to a multigroup actor-partner interdependence model. Results suggest that Croon’s correction generally outperforms conventional SEM and the bias avoiding method in terms of bias, efficiency, Type I error, and coverage, especially in more complex multigroup models and under difficult estimation 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it