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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25958976)

  • 1. Dimensionality of the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale revisited: A Bayesian structural equation modeling approach.
    Fong TC; Ho RT
    J Occup Health; 2015; 57(4):353-8. PubMed ID: 25958976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Factor analyses of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: a Bayesian structural equation modeling approach.
    Fong TC; Ho RT
    Qual Life Res; 2013 Dec; 22(10):2857-63. PubMed ID: 23670233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Factor Structure of the PANAS With Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling in a Chinese Sample.
    Kim M; Wang Z
    Eval Health Prof; 2022 Jun; 45(2):157-167. PubMed ID: 33657889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire-short form in cancer patients: a Bayesian structural equation modeling approach.
    Fong TCT; Wan AHY; Wong VPY; Ho RTH
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2021 Feb; 19(1):51. PubMed ID: 33568146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Further insights on the French WISC-IV factor structure through Bayesian structural equation modeling.
    Golay P; Reverte I; Rossier J; Favez N; Lecerf T
    Psychol Assess; 2013 Jun; 25(2):496-508. PubMed ID: 23148651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Adapting fit indices for Bayesian structural equation modeling: Comparison to maximum likelihood.
    Garnier-Villarreal M; Jorgensen TD
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Feb; 25(1):46-70. PubMed ID: 31180693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Exploring the measurement structure of the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS) in treatment-seekers: A Bayesian structural equation modelling approach.
    Smith D; Woodman R; Drummond A; Battersby M
    Psychiatry Res; 2016 Mar; 237():90-6. PubMed ID: 26921058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Bayesian Factor Analysis as a Variable-Selection Problem: Alternative Priors and Consequences.
    Lu ZH; Chow SM; Loken E
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2016; 51(4):519-39. PubMed ID: 27314566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quantifying the Strength of General Factors in Psychopathology: A Comparison of CFA with Maximum Likelihood Estimation, BSEM, and ESEM/EFA Bifactor Approaches.
    Murray AL; Booth T; Eisner M; Obsuth I; Ribeaud D
    J Pers Assess; 2019; 101(6):631-643. PubMed ID: 29787294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory.
    Muthén B; Asparouhov T
    Psychol Methods; 2012 Sep; 17(3):313-35. PubMed ID: 22962886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Prior sensitivity analysis in default Bayesian structural equation modeling.
    van Erp S; Mulder J; Oberski DL
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Jun; 23(2):363-388. PubMed ID: 29172613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Prior Sensitivity in Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling for Sparse Factor Loading Structures.
    Liang X
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2020 Dec; 80(6):1025-1058. PubMed ID: 33116326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Psychometric Evaluation of the Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two Applying Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling (BSEM) and Multiple-Group BSEM-Based Alignment with Approximate Measurement Invariance.
    De Bondt N; Van Petegem P
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1963. PubMed ID: 26733931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bayesian structural equation modeling in sport and exercise psychology.
    Stenling A; Ivarsson A; Johnson U; Lindwall M
    J Sport Exerc Psychol; 2015 Aug; 37(4):410-20. PubMed ID: 26442771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Measuring chronic condition self-management in an Australian community: factor structure of the revised Partners in Health (PIH) scale.
    Smith D; Harvey P; Lawn S; Harris M; Battersby M
    Qual Life Res; 2017 Jan; 26(1):149-159. PubMed ID: 27432251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Work Engagement in South Korea.
    Ho Kim W; Park JG; Kwon B
    Psychol Rep; 2017 Jun; 120(3):561-578. PubMed ID: 28558613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Small but Nontrivial: A Comparison of Six Strategies to Handle Cross-Loadings in Bifactor Predictive Models.
    Zhang B; Luo J; Sun T; Cao M; Drasgow F
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2023; 58(1):115-132. PubMed ID: 34357822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students in a Chinese sample.
    Meng L; Jin Y
    Nurse Educ Today; 2017 Feb; 49():129-134. PubMed ID: 27918903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessment of generalised Bayesian structural equation models for continuous and binary data.
    Vamvourellis K; Kalogeropoulos K; Moustaki I
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2023 Nov; 76(3):559-584. PubMed ID: 37401608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Exploring and Developing a Scale Using Item Response Theory for Sport Psychological Skills in Speed Skaters.
    Nam JH; Choi BA; Cho EH
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Jun; 19(13):. PubMed ID: 35805696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.