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 *

261 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29172611)

  • 1. Permutation randomization methods for testing measurement equivalence and detecting differential item functioning in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis.
    Jorgensen TD; Kite BA; Chen PY; Short SD
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Dec; 23(4):708-728. PubMed ID: 29172611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Applying Permutation Tests and Multivariate Modification Indices to Configurally Invariant Models That Need Respecification.
    Jorgensen TD
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():1455. PubMed ID: 28883805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact of error structure misspecification when testing measurement invariance and latent-factor mean difference using MIMIC and multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis.
    Joo SH; Kim ES
    Behav Res Methods; 2019 Dec; 51(6):2688-2699. PubMed ID: 30242617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Improving the assessment of measurement invariance: Using regularization to select anchor items and identify differential item functioning.
    Belzak WCM; Bauer DJ
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Dec; 25(6):673-690. PubMed ID: 31916799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. What to do when scalar invariance fails: The extended alignment method for multi-group factor analysis comparison of latent means across many groups.
    Marsh HW; Guo J; Parker PD; Nagengast B; Asparouhov T; Muthén B; Dicke T
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Sep; 23(3):524-545. PubMed ID: 28080078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Measurement invariance via multigroup SEM: Issues and solutions with chi-square-difference tests.
    Yuan KH; Chan W
    Psychol Methods; 2016 Sep; 21(3):405-26. PubMed ID: 27266799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research.
    Putnick DL; Bornstein MH
    Dev Rev; 2016 Sep; 41():71-90. PubMed ID: 27942093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessing measurement invariance of MSQOL-54 across Italian and English versions.
    Giordano A; Testa S; Bassi M; Cilia S; Bertolotto A; Quartuccio ME; Pietrolongo E; Falautano M; Grobberio M; Niccolai C; Allegri B; Viterbo RG; Confalonieri P; Giovannetti AM; Cocco E; Grasso MG; Lugaresi A; Ferriani E; Nocentini U; Zaffaroni M; De Livera A; Jelinek G; Solari A; Rosato R
    Qual Life Res; 2020 Mar; 29(3):783-791. PubMed ID: 31707695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluating Equivalence Testing Methods for Measurement Invariance.
    Counsell A; Cribbie RA; Flora DB
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(2):312-328. PubMed ID: 31389729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing measurement invariance with moderated nonlinear factor analysis using the R package OpenMx.
    Kolbe L; Molenaar D; Jak S; Jorgensen TD
    Psychol Methods; 2024 Apr; 29(2):388-406. PubMed ID: 35786980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance.
    Meade AW; Johnson EC; Braddy PW
    J Appl Psychol; 2008 May; 93(3):568-92. PubMed ID: 18457487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Fit Indices for Measurement Invariance Tests in the Thurstonian IRT Model.
    Lee H; Smith WZ
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2020 Jun; 44(4):282-295. PubMed ID: 32536730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A more general model for testing measurement invariance and differential item functioning.
    Bauer DJ
    Psychol Methods; 2017 Sep; 22(3):507-526. PubMed ID: 27266798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessing cross-national invariance of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE).
    Pignon B; Peyre H; Ferchiou A; van Os J; Rutten BPF; Murray RM; Morgan C; Leboyer M; Schürhoff F; Szöke A;
    Psychol Med; 2019 Nov; 49(15):2600-2607. PubMed ID: 30514407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Measurement invariance testing using confirmatory factor analysis and alignment optimization: A tutorial for transparent analysis planning and reporting.
    Luong R; Flake JK
    Psychol Methods; 2023 Aug; 28(4):905-924. PubMed ID: 35588078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dynamic fit index cutoffs for confirmatory factor analysis models.
    McNeish D; Wolf MG
    Psychol Methods; 2023 Feb; 28(1):61-88. PubMed ID: 34694832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D): Measurement equivalence across gender groups in Hispanic college students.
    Arbona C; Burridge A; Olvera N
    J Affect Disord; 2017 Sep; 219():112-118. PubMed ID: 28535449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Faster permutation inference in brain imaging.
    Winkler AM; Ridgway GR; Douaud G; Nichols TE; Smith SM
    Neuroimage; 2016 Nov; 141():502-516. PubMed ID: 27288322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. To permute or not to permute.
    Huang Y; Xu H; Calian V; Hsu JC
    Bioinformatics; 2006 Sep; 22(18):2244-8. PubMed ID: 16870938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.