2021
DOI: 10.1177/0165025420979365
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fitting latent growth models with small sample sizes and non-normal missing data

Abstract: This study investigates the performance of robust maximum likelihood (ML) estimators when fitting and evaluating small sample latent growth models with non-normal missing data. Results showed that the robust ML methods could be used to account for non-normality even when the sample size is very small (e.g., N < 100). Among the robust ML estimators, “MLR” was the optimal choice, as it was found to be robust to both non-normality and missing data while also yielding more accurate standard error estimates and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While our results suggest that fixed effects are unbiased when residuals are nonnormally distributed, estimated random components should be reported cautiously, as the estimated individual differences in the intercept and slopes may be biased. This finding is consistent with previous studies (Maas & Hox, 2004;McNeish & Stapleton, 2016a;Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002;Shi et al, 2021;Searle et al, 2006). 3.…”
Section: # Sizesupporting
confidence: 94%
“…While our results suggest that fixed effects are unbiased when residuals are nonnormally distributed, estimated random components should be reported cautiously, as the estimated individual differences in the intercept and slopes may be biased. This finding is consistent with previous studies (Maas & Hox, 2004;McNeish & Stapleton, 2016a;Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002;Shi et al, 2021;Searle et al, 2006). 3.…”
Section: # Sizesupporting
confidence: 94%
“…The estimation and statistical power of latent growth modeling increases with an increasing number of measurement occasions (Curran et al, 2010; Zhang & Wang, 2009), which may counterbalance the smaller sample size in our research to some degree (Hertzog et al, 2006). We also followed the recommendation of using the ML robust estimator (Shi et al, 2021) given the small sample size.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It included a relatively small sample for LGCM (Kelley & Rausch, 2011 ) – a large sample size is typically recommended (e.g. >100) for latent modeling (Shi, DiStefano, Zheng, Liu, & Jiang, 2021 ) – which can introduce uncertainty into the models and conclusions. Thus, these findings must be considered exploratory and should be validated in larger studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%