RESUMEN

To interpret a person's change score, one typically transforms the change score into, for example, a percentile, so that one knows a person's location in a distribution of change scores. Transformed scores are referred to as norms and the construction of norms is referred to as norming. Two often-used norming methods for change scores are the regression-based change approach and the T Scores for Change method. In this article, we discuss the similarities and differences between these norming methods, and use a simulation study to systematically examine the precision of the two methods and to establish the minimum sample size requirements for satisfactory precision.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Interdisciplinary research often involves analyzing data obtained from different data sources with respect to the same subjects, objects, or experimental units. For example, global positioning systems (GPS) data have been coupled with travel diary data, resulting in a better understanding of traveling behavior. The GPS data and the travel diary data are very different in nature, and, to analyze the two types of data jointly, one often uses data integration techniques, such as the regularized simultaneous component analysis (regularized SCA) method. Regularized SCA is an extension of the (sparse) principle component analysis model to the cases where at least two data blocks are jointly analyzed, which - in order to reveal the joint and unique sources of variation - heavily relies on proper selection of the set of variables (i.e., component loadings) in the components. Regularized SCA requires a proper variable selection method to either identify the optimal values for tuning parameters or stably select variables. By means of two simulation studies with various noise and sparseness levels in simulated data, we compare six variable selection methods, which are cross-validation (CV) with the "one-standard-error" rule, repeated double CV (rdCV), BIC, Bolasso with CV, stability selection, and index of sparseness (IS) - a lesser known (compared to the first five methods) but computationally efficient method. Results show that IS is the best-performing variable selection method.

RESUMEN

The often-used A(C)E model that decomposes phenotypic variance into parts due to additive genetic and environmental influences can be extended to a longitudinal model when the trait has been assessed at multiple occasions. This enables inference about the nature (e.g., genetic or environmental) of the covariance among the different measurement points. In the case that the measurement of the phenotype relies on self-report data (e.g., questionnaire data), often, aggregated scores (e.g., sum-scores) are used as a proxy for the phenotype. However, earlier research based on the univariate ACE model that concerns a single measurement occasion has shown that this can lead to an underestimation of heritability and that instead, one should prefer to model the raw item data by integrating an explicit measurement model into the analysis. This has, however, not been translated to the more complex longitudinal case. In this paper, we first present a latent state twin A(C)E model that combines the genetic twin model with an item response theory (IRT) model as well as its specification in a Bayesian framework. Two simulation studies were conducted to investigate 1) how large the bias is when sum-scores are used in the longitudinal A(C)E model and 2) if using the latent twin model can overcome the potential bias. Results of the first simulation study (e.g., AE model) demonstrated that using a sum-score approach leads to underestimated heritability estimates and biased covariance estimates. Surprisingly, the IRT approach also lead to bias, but to a much lesser degree. The amount of bias increased in the second simulation study (e.g., ACE model) under both frameworks, with the IRT approach still being the less biased approach. Since the bias was less severe under the IRT approach than under the sum-score approach and due to other advantages of latent variable modelling, we still advise researcher to adopt the IRT approach. We further illustrate differences between the traditional sum-score approach and the latent state twin A(C)E model by analyzing data of a two-wave twin study, consisting of the answers of 8,016 twins on a scale developed to measure social attitudes related to conservatism.

RESUMEN

This article introduces a package developed for R (R Core Team, 2017) for performing an integrated analysis of multiple data blocks (i.e., linked data) coming from different sources. The methods in this package combine simultaneous component analysis (SCA) with structured selection of variables. The key feature of this package is that it allows to (1) identify joint variation that is shared across all the data sources and specific variation that is associated with one or a few of the data sources and (2) flexibly estimate component matrices with predefined structures. Linked data occur in many disciplines (e.g., biomedical research, bioinformatics, chemometrics, finance, genomics, psychology, and sociology) and especially in multidisciplinary research. Hence, we expect our package to be useful in various fields.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Change scores obtained in pretest-posttest designs are important for evaluating treatment effectiveness and for assessing change of individual test scores in psychological research. However, over the years the use of change scores has raised much controversy. In this article, from a multilevel perspective, we provide a structured treatise on several persistent negative beliefs about change scores and show that these beliefs originated from the confounding of the effects of within-person change on change-score reliability and between-person change differences. We argue that psychometric properties of change scores, such as reliability and measurement precision, should be treated at suitable levels within a multilevel framework. We show that, if examined at the suitable levels with such a framework, the negative beliefs about change scores can be renounced convincingly. Finally, we summarize the conclusions about change scores to dispel the myths and to promote the potential and practical usefulness of change scores.

Asunto(s)