The central limit theorem (CLT) is one of the most important theorems in statistics, and it is often introduced to social sciences researchers in an introductory statistics course. However, the recent replication crisis in the social sciences prompts us to investigate just how common certain misconceptions of statistical concepts are. The main purposes of this article are to investigate the misconceptions of the CLT among social sciences researchers and to address these misconceptions by clarifying the definition and properties of the CLT in a manner that is approachable to social science researchers. As part of our article, we conducted a survey to examine the misconceptions of the CLT among graduate students and researchers in the social sciences. We found that the most common misconception of the CLT is that researchers think the CLT is about the convergence of sample data to the normal distribution. We also found that most researchers did not realize that the CLT applies to both sample means and sample sums, and that the CLT has implications for many common statistical concepts and techniques. Our article addresses these misconceptions of the CLT by explaining the preliminaries needed to understand the CLT, introducing the formal definition of the CLT, and elaborating on the implications of the CLT. We hope that through this article, researchers can obtain a more accurate and nuanced understanding of how the CLT operates as well as its role in a variety of statistical concepts and techniques.
The full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) is a popular estimation method for missing data in structural equation modeling (SEM). However, previous research has shown that SEM approximate fit indices (AFIs) such as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI) can be distorted relative to their complete data counterparts when they are computed following the FIML estimation. The main goal of the current paper is to propose and examine an alternative approach for computing AFIs following the FIML estimation, which we refer to as the FIML-corrected or FIML-C approach. The secondary goal of the article is to examine another existing estimation method, the two-stage (TS) approach, for computing AFIs in the presence of missing data. Both FIML-C and TS approaches remove the bias due to missing data, so that the resulting incomplete data AFIs estimate the same population values as their complete data counterparts. For both approaches, we also propose a series of small sample corrections to improve the estimates of AFIs. In two simulation studies, we found that the FIML-C and TS approaches, when implemented with small sample corrections, estimated the population-complete-data AFIs with little bias across a variety of conditions, although the FIML-C approach can fail in a small number of conditions with a high percentage of missing data and a high degree of model misspecification. In contrast, the FIML AFIs as currently computed often performed poorly. We recommend FIML-C and TS approaches for computing AFIs in SEM.
Zhang and Savalei proposed an alternative scale format to the Likert format, called the Expanded format. In this format, response options are presented in complete sentences, which can reduce acquiescence bias and method effects. The goal of the current study was to compare the psychometric properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) in the Expanded format and in two other alternative formats, relative to several versions of the traditional Likert format. We conducted two studies to compare the psychometric properties of the RSES across the different formats. We found that compared with the Likert format, the alternative formats tend to have a unidimensional factor structure, less response inconsistency, and comparable validity. In addition, we found that the Expanded format resulted in the best factor structure among the three alternative formats. Researchers should consider the Expanded format, especially when creating short psychological scales such as the RSES.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.