Overextraction of Latent Trajectory Classes: Much Ado About Nothing? Reply to Rindskopf (2003), Muthén (2003), and Cudeck and Henly (2003).
- 1 September 2003
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Psychological Methods
- Vol. 8 (3) , 384-393
- https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.8.3.384
Abstract
The comments on D. J. Bauer and P. J. Curran (2003) share 2 common themes. The 1st theme is that model-checking procedures may be capable of distinguishing between mixtures of normal and homogeneous nonnormal distributions. Although useful for assessing model quality, it is argued here that currently available procedures may not always help discern between these 2 possibilities. The 2nd theme is that even if these 2 possibilities cannot be distinguished, a growth mixture model may still provide useful insights into the data. It is argued here that whereas this may be true for the scientific goals of description and prediction, the acceptance of a model that fundamentally misrepresents the underlying data structure may be less useful in pursuit of the goal of explanation.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Statistical and Substantive Checking in Growth Mixture Modeling: Comment on Bauer and Curran (2003).Psychological Methods, 2003
- A Realistic Perspective on Pattern Representation in Growth Data: Comment on Bauer and Curran (2003).Psychological Methods, 2003
- Distributional Assumptions of Growth Mixture Models: Implications for Overextraction of Latent Trajectory Classes.Psychological Methods, 2003
- Mixture or Homogeneous? Comment on Bauer and Curran (2003).Psychological Methods, 2003
- From Kernels to MixturesTechnometrics, 2001
- Latent Variable Mixture ModelingPublished by Taylor & Francis ,2001