These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

309 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19719362)

  • 1. Estimation of IRT graded response models: limited versus full information methods.
    Forero CG; Maydeu-Olivares A
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Sep; 14(3):275-99. PubMed ID: 19719362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The impact of nonnormality on full information maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation models with missing data.
    Enders CK
    Psychol Methods; 2001 Dec; 6(4):352-70. PubMed ID: 11778677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The performance of robust test statistics with categorical data.
    Savalei V; Rhemtulla M
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2013 May; 66(2):201-23. PubMed ID: 22568535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Estimating the pi* goodness of fit index for finite mixtures of item response models.
    Revuelta J
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2008 May; 61(Pt 1):93-113. PubMed ID: 18482477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Robustness of Parameter Estimation to Assumptions of Normality in the Multidimensional Graded Response Model.
    Wang C; Su S; Weiss DJ
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2018; 53(3):403-418. PubMed ID: 29624093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Bootstrapping the estimated latent distribution of the two-parameter latent trait model.
    Knott M; Tzamourani P
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2007 May; 60(Pt 1):175-91. PubMed ID: 17535586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions.
    Rhemtulla M; Brosseau-Liard PÉ; Savalei V
    Psychol Methods; 2012 Sep; 17(3):354-73. PubMed ID: 22799625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Analysing multitrait-multimethod data with structural equation models for ordinal variables applying the WLSMV estimator: what sample size is needed for valid results?
    Nussbeck FW; Eid M; Lischetzke T
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2006 May; 59(Pt 1):195-213. PubMed ID: 16709286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence analysis for the factor analysis model with ranking data.
    Xu L; Poon WY; Lee SY
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2008 May; 61(Pt 1):133-61. PubMed ID: 18482479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Marginal likelihood inference for a model for item responses and response times.
    Glas CA; van der Linden WJ
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2010 Nov; 63(Pt 3):603-26. PubMed ID: 20109271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of estimation methods on making trait-level inferences from ordered categorical items for assessing psychopathology.
    Dumenci L; Achenbach TM
    Psychol Assess; 2008 Mar; 20(1):55-62. PubMed ID: 18315399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Parameter recovery for the partial credit model using MULTILOG.
    Choi SW; Cook KF; Dodd BG
    J Outcome Meas; 1997; 1(2):114-42. PubMed ID: 9661717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Conditional pairwise estimation in the Rasch model for ordered response categories using principal components.
    Andrich D; Luo G
    J Appl Meas; 2003; 4(3):205-21. PubMed ID: 12904672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A graded response model for measuring person reliability.
    Ferrando PJ
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Nov; 62(Pt 3):641-62. PubMed ID: 19159504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Subject-centered scalability: the sine qua non of summated ratings.
    Drewes DW
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Sep; 14(3):258-74. PubMed ID: 19719361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Monte Carlo study comparing PIV, ULS and DWLS in the estimation of dichotomous confirmatory factor analysis.
    Nestler S
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2013 Feb; 66(1):127-43. PubMed ID: 22524532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Testing and modelling non-normality within the one-factor model.
    Molenaar D; Dolan CV; Verhelst ND
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2010 May; 63(Pt 2):293-317. PubMed ID: 19796474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. MCMC estimation for the p(2) network regression model with crossed random effects.
    Zijlstra BJ; van Duijn MA; Snijders TA
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):143-66. PubMed ID: 19208289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables.
    Smithson M; Verkuilen J
    Psychol Methods; 2006 Mar; 11(1):54-71. PubMed ID: 16594767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The construction and implementation of user-defined fit tests for use with marginal maximum likelihood estimation and generalized item response models.
    Adams RJ; Wu ML
    J Appl Meas; 2009; 10(4):355-70. PubMed ID: 19934525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.