心理过程分类模型的拟合优度检验:修正渐近理论的偶尔失败。

IF 2.9 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Miguel A García-Pérez, Rocío Alcalá-Quintana
{"title":"心理过程分类模型的拟合优度检验:修正渐近理论的偶尔失败。","authors":"Miguel A García-Pérez, Rocío Alcalá-Quintana","doi":"10.1017/SJP.2025.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The goodness of fit of categorical models of psychological processes is often assessed with the log-likelihood ratio statistic (<i>G</i><sup>2</sup>), but its underlying asymptotic theory is known to have limited empirical validity. We use examples from the scenario of fitting psychometric functions to psychophysical discrimination data to show that two factors are responsible for occasional discrepancies between actual and asymptotic distributions of <i>G</i><sup>2</sup>. One of them is the eventuality of very small expected counts, by which the number of degrees of freedom should be computed as (<i>J-</i>1) × <i>I-P-K</i><sub>0.06</sub>, where <i>J</i> is the number of response categories in the task, <i>I</i> is the number of comparison levels, <i>P</i> is the number of free parameters in the fitted model, and <i>K</i><sub>0.06</sub> is the number of cells in the implied <i>I</i> × <i>J</i> table in which expected counts do not exceed 0.06. The second factor is the administration of small numbers <i>n<sub>i</sub></i> of trials at each comparison level <i>x<sub>i</sub></i> (1 ≤ <i><i>i</i></i> ≤ <i>I</i>). These numbers should not be ridiculously small (i.e., lower than 10) but they need not be identical across comparison levels. In practice, when <i>n<sub>i</sub></i> varies across levels, it suffices that the overall number <i>N</i> of trials exceeds 40 × <i>I</i> if <i>J</i> = 2 or 50 × <i>I</i> if <i>J</i> = 3, with no <i>n<sub>i</sub></i> lower than 10. Correcting the degrees of freedom and using large <i>n<sub>i</sub></i> are easy to implement in practice. These precautions ensure the validity of goodness-of-fit tests based on <i>G</i><sup>2</sup>.</p>","PeriodicalId":54309,"journal":{"name":"Spanish Journal of Psychology","volume":"28 ","pages":"e6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Goodness-of-fit Tests for Categorical Models of Psychological Processes: Fixing the Occasional Failures of Asymptotic Theory.\",\"authors\":\"Miguel A García-Pérez, Rocío Alcalá-Quintana\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/SJP.2025.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The goodness of fit of categorical models of psychological processes is often assessed with the log-likelihood ratio statistic (<i>G</i><sup>2</sup>), but its underlying asymptotic theory is known to have limited empirical validity. We use examples from the scenario of fitting psychometric functions to psychophysical discrimination data to show that two factors are responsible for occasional discrepancies between actual and asymptotic distributions of <i>G</i><sup>2</sup>. One of them is the eventuality of very small expected counts, by which the number of degrees of freedom should be computed as (<i>J-</i>1) × <i>I-P-K</i><sub>0.06</sub>, where <i>J</i> is the number of response categories in the task, <i>I</i> is the number of comparison levels, <i>P</i> is the number of free parameters in the fitted model, and <i>K</i><sub>0.06</sub> is the number of cells in the implied <i>I</i> × <i>J</i> table in which expected counts do not exceed 0.06. The second factor is the administration of small numbers <i>n<sub>i</sub></i> of trials at each comparison level <i>x<sub>i</sub></i> (1 ≤ <i><i>i</i></i> ≤ <i>I</i>). These numbers should not be ridiculously small (i.e., lower than 10) but they need not be identical across comparison levels. In practice, when <i>n<sub>i</sub></i> varies across levels, it suffices that the overall number <i>N</i> of trials exceeds 40 × <i>I</i> if <i>J</i> = 2 or 50 × <i>I</i> if <i>J</i> = 3, with no <i>n<sub>i</sub></i> lower than 10. Correcting the degrees of freedom and using large <i>n<sub>i</sub></i> are easy to implement in practice. These precautions ensure the validity of goodness-of-fit tests based on <i>G</i><sup>2</sup>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spanish Journal of Psychology\",\"volume\":\"28 \",\"pages\":\"e6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spanish Journal of Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2025.1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spanish Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2025.1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

心理过程分类模型的拟合优度通常用对数似然比统计量(G2)来评估,但其潜在的渐近理论已知具有有限的经验有效性。我们使用心理测量函数拟合心理物理歧视数据的例子来表明,G2的实际分布和渐近分布之间的偶尔差异是由两个因素造成的。其中之一是期望计数非常小的可能性,据此,自由度的数量应计算为(J-1) × I-P-K0.06,其中J是任务中的响应类别的数量,I是比较水平的数量,P是拟合模型中的自由参数的数量,K0.06是隐含的I × J表中期望计数不超过0.06的单元格数量。第二个因素是在每个比较水平xi(1≤i≤i)上进行少量试验ni。这些数字不应该小得离谱(即低于10),但它们不需要在各个比较水平上相同。在实践中,当ni在不同水平上变化时,如果J = 2,则试验总数N超过40 × I,如果J = 3,则超过50 × I,并且ni不低于10就足够了。在实践中,校正自由度和使用大ni是很容易实现的。这些注意事项确保了基于G2的拟合优度检验的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Goodness-of-fit Tests for Categorical Models of Psychological Processes: Fixing the Occasional Failures of Asymptotic Theory.

The goodness of fit of categorical models of psychological processes is often assessed with the log-likelihood ratio statistic (G2), but its underlying asymptotic theory is known to have limited empirical validity. We use examples from the scenario of fitting psychometric functions to psychophysical discrimination data to show that two factors are responsible for occasional discrepancies between actual and asymptotic distributions of G2. One of them is the eventuality of very small expected counts, by which the number of degrees of freedom should be computed as (J-1) × I-P-K0.06, where J is the number of response categories in the task, I is the number of comparison levels, P is the number of free parameters in the fitted model, and K0.06 is the number of cells in the implied I × J table in which expected counts do not exceed 0.06. The second factor is the administration of small numbers ni of trials at each comparison level xi (1 ≤ iI). These numbers should not be ridiculously small (i.e., lower than 10) but they need not be identical across comparison levels. In practice, when ni varies across levels, it suffices that the overall number N of trials exceeds 40 × I if J = 2 or 50 × I if J = 3, with no ni lower than 10. Correcting the degrees of freedom and using large ni are easy to implement in practice. These precautions ensure the validity of goodness-of-fit tests based on G2.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Spanish Journal of Psychology
Spanish Journal of Psychology Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Spanish Journal of Psychology is published with the aim of promoting the international dissemination of relevant empirical research and theoretical and methodological proposals in the various areas of specialization within psychology. The first Spanish journal with an international scope published entirely in English.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信