scholarly journals A comparison of Bayesian and frequentist model selection methods for factor analysis models.

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhao-Hua Lu ◽  
Sy-Miin Chow ◽  
Eric Loken
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Model Selection ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Analysis Models

scholarly journals Bayesian Model Averaging to Account for Model Uncertainty in Estimates of a Vaccine's Effectiveness

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos R Oliveira ◽  
Eugene D Shapiro ◽  
Daniel M Weinberger
Keyword(s):  
Model Selection ◽  
Model Uncertainty ◽  
Bayesian Model ◽  
Bayesian Model Averaging ◽  
Model Averaging ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Final Model ◽  
Negative Case ◽  
Confounder Selection ◽  
Control Study

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are often conducted after the introduction of new vaccines to ensure they provide protection in real-world settings. Although susceptible to confounding, the test-negative case-control study design is the most efficient method to assess VE post-licensure. Control of confounding is often needed during the analyses, which is most efficiently done through multivariable modeling. When a large number of potential confounders are being considered, it can be challenging to know which variables need to be included in the final model. This paper highlights the importance of considering model uncertainty by re-analyzing a Lyme VE study using several confounder selection methods. We propose an intuitive Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) framework for this task and compare the performance of BMA to that of traditional single-best-model-selection methods. We demonstrate how BMA can be advantageous in situations when there is uncertainty about model selection by systematically considering alternative models and increasing transparency.

Giving G a Meaning: An Application of the Bifactor-(S-1) Approach to Realize a More Symptom-Oriented Modeling of the Beck Depression Inventory–II

Assessment ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1429-1447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Heinrich ◽  
Pavle Zagorscak ◽  
Michael Eid ◽  
Christine Knaevelsrud
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Confirmatory Factor Analysis ◽  
Beck Depression Inventory ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
First Order ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Current Article ◽  
Analysis Models

The Beck Depression Inventory–II is one of the most frequently used scales to assess depressive burden. Despite many psychometric evaluations, its factor structure is still a topic of debate. An increasing number of articles using fully symmetrical bifactor models have been published recently. However, they all produce anomalous results, which lead to psychometric and interpretational difficulties. To avoid anomalous results, the bifactor-(S-1) approach has recently been proposed as alternative for fitting bifactor structures. The current article compares the applicability of fully symmetrical bifactor models and symptom-oriented bifactor-(S-1) and first-order confirmatory factor analysis models in a large clinical sample ( N = 3,279) of adults. The results suggest that bifactor-(S-1) models are preferable when bifactor structures are of interest, since they reduce problematic results observed in fully symmetrical bifactor models and give the G factor an unambiguous meaning. Otherwise, symptom-oriented first-order confirmatory factor analysis models present a reasonable alternative.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document