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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26765800)

  • 1. Assessing Approximate Fit in Categorical Data Analysis.
    Maydeu-Olivares A; Joe H
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2014; 49(4):305-28. PubMed ID: 26765800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Identifying the Source of Misfit in Item Response Theory Models.
    Liu Y; Maydeu-Olivares A
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2014; 49(4):354-71. PubMed ID: 26765803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Investigating the Behaviors of
    Xu J; Paek I; Xia Y
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2017 Nov; 41(8):632-644. PubMed ID: 29881108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Incremental Model Fit Assessment in the Case of Categorical Data: Tucker-Lewis Index for Item Response Theory Modeling.
    Cai L; Chung SW; Lee T
    Prev Sci; 2023 Apr; 24(3):455-466. PubMed ID: 33970410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Limited-information goodness-of-fit testing of diagnostic classification item response models.
    Hansen M; Cai L; Monroe S; Li Z
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2016 Nov; 69(3):225-252. PubMed ID: 27404336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. How should we assess the fit of Rasch-type models? Approximating the power of goodness-of-fit statistics in categorical data analysis.
    Maydeu-Olivares A; Montaño R
    Psychometrika; 2013 Jan; 78(1):116-33. PubMed ID: 25107521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluating Structural Equation Models for Categorical Outcomes: A New Test Statistic and a Practical Challenge of Interpretation.
    Monroe S; Cai L
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2015; 50(6):569-83. PubMed ID: 26717119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Limited-information goodness-of-fit testing of item response theory models for sparse 2 tables.
    Cai L; Maydeu-Olivares A; Coffman DL; Thissen D
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2006 May; 59(Pt 1):173-94. PubMed ID: 16709285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pearson's goodness-of-fit tests for sparse distributions.
    Chang S; Li D; Qi Y
    J Appl Stat; 2023; 50(5):1078-1093. PubMed ID: 37009596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Limited-information goodness-of-fit testing of hierarchical item factor models.
    Cai L; Hansen M
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2013 May; 66(2):245-76. PubMed ID: 22642552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sensitivity of Fit Indices to Fake Perturbation of Ordinal Data: A Sample by Replacement Approach.
    Lombardi L; Pastore M
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2012 Jul; 47(4):519-46. PubMed ID: 26777668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Advantages of Using Unweighted Approximation Error Measures for Model Fit Assessment.
    Lubbe D
    Psychometrika; 2023 Jun; 88(2):413-433. PubMed ID: 37071271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A Composite Likelihood Inference in Latent Variable Models for Ordinal Longitudinal Responses.
    Vasdekis VG; Cagnone S; Moustaki I
    Psychometrika; 2012 Jul; 77(3):425-41. PubMed ID: 27519774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An Extended GFfit Statistic Defined on Orthogonal Components of Pearson's Chi-Square.
    Reiser M; Cagnone S; Zhu J
    Psychometrika; 2023 Mar; 88(1):208-240. PubMed ID: 35661291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Are fit indices really fit to estimate the number of factors with categorical variables? Some cautionary findings via Monte Carlo simulation.
    Garrido LE; Abad FJ; Ponsoda V
    Psychol Methods; 2016 Mar; 21(1):93-111. PubMed ID: 26651983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Item diagnostics in multivariate discrete data.
    Maydeu-Olivares A; Liu Y
    Psychol Methods; 2015 Jun; 20(2):276-92. PubMed ID: 25867486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Using the Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) to Assess Exact Fit in Structural Equation Models.
    Pavlov G; Maydeu-Olivares A; Shi D
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2021 Feb; 81(1):110-130. PubMed ID: 33456064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Item response theory analyses of physical functioning items in the medical outcomes study.
    Hays RD; Liu H; Spritzer K; Cella D
    Med Care; 2007 May; 45(5 Suppl 1):S32-8. PubMed ID: 17443117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Masking misfit in confirmatory factor analysis by increasing unique variances: a cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices.
    Heene M; Hilbert S; Draxler C; Ziegler M; Bühner M
    Psychol Methods; 2011 Sep; 16(3):319-36. PubMed ID: 21843002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An Empirical Evaluation of the Use of Fixed Cutoff Points in RMSEA Test Statistic in Structural Equation Models.
    Chen F; Curran PJ; Bollen KA; Kirby J; Paxton P
    Sociol Methods Res; 2008 Jan; 36(4):462-494. PubMed ID: 19756246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.