Comparing estimation methods for psychometric networks with ordinal data.

IF 7.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Simran K Johal, M. Rhemtulla
{"title":"Comparing estimation methods for psychometric networks with ordinal data.","authors":"Simran K Johal, M. Rhemtulla","doi":"10.31234/OSF.IO/EJ2GN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ordinal data are extremely common in psychological research, with variables often assessed using Likert-type scales that take on only a few values. At the same time, researchers are increasingly fitting network models to ordinal item-level data. Yet very little work has evaluated how network estimation techniques perform when data are ordinal. We use a Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate and compare the performance of three estimation methods applied to either Pearson or polychoric correlations: extended Bayesian information criterion graphical lasso with regularized edge estimates (\"EBIC\"), Bayesian information criterion model selection with partial correlation edge estimates (\"BIC\"), and multiple regression with p-value-based edge selection and partial correlation edge estimates (\"MR\"). We vary the number and distribution of thresholds, distribution of the underlying continuous data, sample size, model size, and network density, and we evaluate results in terms of model structure (sensitivity and false positive rate) and edge weight bias. Our results show that the effect of treating the data as ordinal versus continuous depends primarily on the number of levels in the data, and that estimation performance was affected by the sample size, the shape of the underlying distribution, and the symmetry of underlying thresholds. Furthermore, which estimation method is recommended depends on the research goals: MR methods tended to maximize sensitivity of edge detection, BIC approaches minimized false positives, and either one of these produced accurate edge weight estimates in sufficiently large samples. We identify some particularly difficult combinations of conditions for which no method produces stable results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/EJ2GN","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: 5

Abstract

Ordinal data are extremely common in psychological research, with variables often assessed using Likert-type scales that take on only a few values. At the same time, researchers are increasingly fitting network models to ordinal item-level data. Yet very little work has evaluated how network estimation techniques perform when data are ordinal. We use a Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate and compare the performance of three estimation methods applied to either Pearson or polychoric correlations: extended Bayesian information criterion graphical lasso with regularized edge estimates ("EBIC"), Bayesian information criterion model selection with partial correlation edge estimates ("BIC"), and multiple regression with p-value-based edge selection and partial correlation edge estimates ("MR"). We vary the number and distribution of thresholds, distribution of the underlying continuous data, sample size, model size, and network density, and we evaluate results in terms of model structure (sensitivity and false positive rate) and edge weight bias. Our results show that the effect of treating the data as ordinal versus continuous depends primarily on the number of levels in the data, and that estimation performance was affected by the sample size, the shape of the underlying distribution, and the symmetry of underlying thresholds. Furthermore, which estimation method is recommended depends on the research goals: MR methods tended to maximize sensitivity of edge detection, BIC approaches minimized false positives, and either one of these produced accurate edge weight estimates in sufficiently large samples. We identify some particularly difficult combinations of conditions for which no method produces stable results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
将心理测量网络的估计方法与有序数据进行比较。
序数数据在心理学研究中非常常见,变量通常使用李克特量表来评估,这种量表只取几个值。与此同时,研究人员越来越多地将网络模型拟合到有序的项目级数据中。然而,很少有研究评估网络估计技术在数据有序时的表现。我们使用蒙特卡罗模拟来评估和比较应用于Pearson或多重相关性的三种估计方法的性能:带正则化边缘估计的扩展贝叶斯信息准则图形套索(EBIC),带偏相关边缘估计的贝叶斯信息准则模型选择(BIC),以及基于p值的边缘选择和偏相关边缘估计的多元回归(MR)。我们改变阈值的数量和分布、潜在连续数据的分布、样本量、模型大小和网络密度,并根据模型结构(灵敏度和假阳性率)和边缘权重偏差评估结果。我们的研究结果表明,将数据视为有序还是连续的效果主要取决于数据中的水平数,并且估计性能受样本量,底层分布的形状和底层阈值的对称性的影响。此外,哪种估计方法被推荐取决于研究目标:MR方法倾向于最大化边缘检测的灵敏度,BIC方法最小化假阳性,其中任何一种方法都可以在足够大的样本中产生准确的边缘权重估计。我们确定了一些特别困难的条件组合,没有任何方法能产生稳定的结果。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 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