A systematic review of latent class analysis in psychology: Examining the gap between guidelines and research practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latent class analysis (LCA) can help identify unobserved classes of individuals in a population based on collected categorical data. It is commonly used in psychology to test hypotheses about sources of heterogeneity and class characteristics. However, careful decision-making is required in the modeling process. Its flexibility may explain why it is becoming more commonly used in psychology; however, it also highlights that there are many decision points in the modeling process, thus warranting a systematic literature review to document the use of LCA in psychology, mapping both the prevalence and quality of LCA studies. This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and involved a comprehensive search across multiple databases, yielding 7,580 records related to latent class analysis. After removing duplicates and selecting a representative subsample, 377 documents were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 251 publications (comprising 313 LCAs) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were reviewed for this study. Each study was meticulously coded to map how the authors performed and reported each step of the LCA. Our analysis of these studies, in comparison with published guidelines, revealed notable discrepancies in how LCA is applied and reported. To support researchers in enhancing the quality of future LCA applications, we summarize key recommendations in a final section that outlines best practices for future LCA applications. The findings indicate a growing use of LCA in psychology but also highlight the need for greater methodological rigor and transparency in its implementation.
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 | 0.171 | 0.509 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.046 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".