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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26779071)

  • 1. Recovery of Weak Factor Loadings When Adding the Mean Structure in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Simulation Study.
    Ximénez C
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1943. PubMed ID: 26779071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Recovery of weak factor loadings in confirmatory factor analysis under conditions of model misspecification.
    Ximénez C
    Behav Res Methods; 2009 Nov; 41(4):1038-52. PubMed ID: 19897812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Investigating the Applicability of Alignment-A Monte Carlo Simulation Study.
    Wen C; Hu F
    Front Psychol; 2022; 13():845721. PubMed ID: 35814060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A Solution to Modeling Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Data Obtained from Complex Survey Sampling to Avoid Conflated Parameter Estimates.
    Wu JY; Lin JJH; Nian MW; Hsiao YC
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():1464. PubMed ID: 29018369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Testing for heterogeneous factor loadings using mixtures of confirmatory factor analysis models.
    Buzick HM
    Front Psychol; 2010; 1():165. PubMed ID: 21833229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. What are the consequences of ignoring cross-loadings in bifactor models? A simulation study assessing parameter recovery and sensitivity of goodness-of-fit indices.
    Ximénez C; Revuelta J; Castañeda R
    Front Psychol; 2022; 13():923877. PubMed ID: 36092049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. On Modeling Missing Data in Structural Investigations Based on Tetrachoric Correlations With Free and Fixed Factor Loadings.
    Schweizer K; Gold A; Krampen D
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2023 Dec; 83(6):1113-1138. PubMed ID: 37970487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On the equivalency of factor and network loadings.
    Christensen AP; Golino H
    Behav Res Methods; 2021 Aug; 53(4):1563-1580. PubMed ID: 33409985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reconsidering the Conditions for Conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
    Ondé D; Alvarado JM
    Span J Psychol; 2020 Dec; 23():e55. PubMed ID: 33272349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. On Modeling Missing Data of an Incomplete Design in the CFA Framework.
    Schweizer K; Gold A; Krampen D; Wang T
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():581709. PubMed ID: 33343456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares.
    Li CH
    Behav Res Methods; 2016 Sep; 48(3):936-49. PubMed ID: 26174714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Modeling Measurement as a Sequential Process: Autoregressive Confirmatory Factor Analysis (AR-CFA).
    Ozkok O; Zyphur MJ; Barsky AP; Theilacker M; Donnellan MB; Oswald FL
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():2108. PubMed ID: 31616338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluating heterogeneity in indoor and outdoor air pollution using land-use regression and constrained factor analysis.
    Levy JI; Clougherty JE; Baxter LK; Houseman EA; Paciorek CJ;
    Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2010 Dec; (152):5-80; discussion 81-91. PubMed ID: 21409949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Asymptotic efficiency of the pseudo-maximum likelihood estimator in multi-group factor models with pooled data.
    Jin S; Yang-Wallentin F; Christoffersson A
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2016 Feb; 69(1):20-42. PubMed ID: 25980670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Factors Influencing Cross-Validation of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models.
    Bandalos DL
    Multivariate Behav Res; 1993 Jul; 28(3):351-74. PubMed ID: 26776892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Is exploratory factor analysis always to be preferred? A systematic comparison of factor analytic techniques throughout the confirmatory-exploratory continuum.
    Nájera P; Abad FJ; Sorrel MA
    Psychol Methods; 2023 May; ():. PubMed ID: 37227893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Recovering Substantive Factor Loadings in the Presence of Acquiescence Bias: A Comparison of Three Approaches.
    Savalei V; Falk CF
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2014; 49(5):407-24. PubMed ID: 26732356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Regularized Exploratory Bifactor Analysis With Small Sample Sizes.
    Jung S; Seo DG; Park J
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():507. PubMed ID: 32372995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Multiple Group Analysis in Multilevel Data Across Within-Level Groups: A Comparison of Multilevel Factor Mixture Modeling and Multilevel Multiple-Indicators Multiple-Causes Modeling.
    Son S; Hong S
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2021 Oct; 81(5):904-935. PubMed ID: 34565811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.