Network accuracy across levels of analysis using stochastic block models.

IF 7.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Alexander P Christensen, Jeongwon Choi
{"title":"Network accuracy across levels of analysis using stochastic block models.","authors":"Alexander P Christensen, Jeongwon Choi","doi":"10.1037/met0000853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Researchers apply network psychometric methods across many levels of analysis-from understanding causal pathways (edges) and variable importance (centrality) to uncovering dimensionality (community) and group differences (network similarity). Valid inferences at each level depends on the accuracy of network estimation methods, yet simulation studies have focused almost exclusively on edge recovery using data generating mechanisms that lack known community structures. In this large-scale simulation study, we evaluated four network estimation methods (EBICglasso variants, ggmModSelect, GGMncv, GGMnonreg) across four levels of analysis using stochastic block models with empirically informed edge weight distributions derived from 293 empirical networks in psychology. For most levels, large samples (≥1,000) were necessary for adequate recovery, echoing concerns about sufficient evidence for inferences drawn by many published studies. The EBICglasso variants outperformed the other methods in smaller samples (≤1,000) and dichotomous data; however, these conditions demonstrated inadequate recovery across methods (including EBICglasso). Most methods achieved adequate accuracy in larger samples (≥2,500) and continuous data. Centrality accuracy varied substantially: Network loadings were reliably recovered across all conditions whereas bridge strength was unreliable even under ideal conditions. For node and bridge strength, we recommend reporting raw values rather than rankings, as rank-order recovery required substantially larger samples. We also established interpretation benchmarks for network similarity metrics (<i>s</i><sub>F</sub> and Jensen-Shannon similarity) and found community detection to be robust except under challenging conditions (small samples and dichotomous data). Collectively, these findings provide concrete, level-specific guidance for method and measure selection based on sample size and data categories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000853","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Researchers apply network psychometric methods across many levels of analysis-from understanding causal pathways (edges) and variable importance (centrality) to uncovering dimensionality (community) and group differences (network similarity). Valid inferences at each level depends on the accuracy of network estimation methods, yet simulation studies have focused almost exclusively on edge recovery using data generating mechanisms that lack known community structures. In this large-scale simulation study, we evaluated four network estimation methods (EBICglasso variants, ggmModSelect, GGMncv, GGMnonreg) across four levels of analysis using stochastic block models with empirically informed edge weight distributions derived from 293 empirical networks in psychology. For most levels, large samples (≥1,000) were necessary for adequate recovery, echoing concerns about sufficient evidence for inferences drawn by many published studies. The EBICglasso variants outperformed the other methods in smaller samples (≤1,000) and dichotomous data; however, these conditions demonstrated inadequate recovery across methods (including EBICglasso). Most methods achieved adequate accuracy in larger samples (≥2,500) and continuous data. Centrality accuracy varied substantially: Network loadings were reliably recovered across all conditions whereas bridge strength was unreliable even under ideal conditions. For node and bridge strength, we recommend reporting raw values rather than rankings, as rank-order recovery required substantially larger samples. We also established interpretation benchmarks for network similarity metrics (sF and Jensen-Shannon similarity) and found community detection to be robust except under challenging conditions (small samples and dichotomous data). Collectively, these findings provide concrete, level-specific guidance for method and measure selection based on sample size and data categories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

使用随机块模型跨层次分析的网络精度。
研究人员将网络心理测量方法应用于许多层面的分析——从理解因果路径(边缘)和可变重要性(中心性)到揭示维度(社区)和群体差异(网络相似性)。每个级别的有效推断取决于网络估计方法的准确性,然而模拟研究几乎只关注使用缺乏已知社区结构的数据生成机制的边缘恢复。在这项大规模的模拟研究中,我们使用随机块模型评估了四种网络估计方法(EBICglasso变体、ggmModSelect、ggmcv、GGMnonreg),这些模型具有来自293个心理学经验网络的经验信息边缘权重分布。对于大多数水平,需要大样本(≥1000)才能充分恢复,这与许多已发表研究得出的结论是否有足够证据的担忧相呼应。EBICglasso变体在较小样本(≤1000)和二分类数据中优于其他方法;然而,这些条件表明,各种方法(包括EBICglasso)的回收率都不足。大多数方法在较大样本(≥2,500)和连续数据中获得了足够的准确性。中心性准确性变化很大:网络载荷在所有条件下都可靠地恢复,而桥梁强度即使在理想条件下也不可靠。对于节点和桥接强度,我们建议报告原始值而不是排名,因为排名顺序恢复需要更大的样本。我们还建立了网络相似度指标(sF和Jensen-Shannon相似度)的解释基准,并发现除了在具有挑战性的条件下(小样本和二分类数据),社区检测是稳健的。总的来说,这些发现为基于样本量和数据类别的方法和测量选择提供了具体的、特定水平的指导。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书