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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30372100)

  • 1. Fit indices for mean structures with growth curve models.
    Yuan KH; Zhang Z; Deng L
    Psychol Methods; 2019 Feb; 24(1):36-53. PubMed ID: 30372100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Corrected goodness-of-fit test in covariance structure analysis.
    Hayakawa K
    Psychol Methods; 2019 Jun; 24(3):371-389. PubMed ID: 29771549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluating model fit for growth curve models: Integration of fit indices from SEM and MLM frameworks.
    Wu W; West SG; Taylor AB
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Sep; 14(3):183-201. PubMed ID: 19719357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Local fit evaluation of structural equation models using graphical criteria.
    Thoemmes F; Rosseel Y; Textor J
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Mar; 23(1):27-41. PubMed ID: 28726444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. On congruence and incongruence of measures of fit in structural equation modeling.
    Moshagen M; Auerswald M
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Jun; 23(2):318-336. PubMed ID: 28301200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluating fit indices in a multilevel latent growth curve model: A Monte Carlo study.
    Hsu HY; Lin JJH; Skidmore ST; Kim M
    Behav Res Methods; 2019 Feb; 51(1):172-194. PubMed ID: 30536150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sensitivity of Fit Indices to Misspecification in Growth Curve Models.
    Wu W; West SG
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2010 May; 45(3):420-52. PubMed ID: 26760488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Tutorial on removing the shackles of regression analysis: How to stay true to your theory of binary response probabilities.
    Regenwetter M; Cavagnaro DR
    Psychol Methods; 2019 Apr; 24(2):135-152. PubMed ID: 30359043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. We need to change how we compute RMSEA for nested model comparisons in structural equation modeling.
    Savalei V; Brace JC; Fouladi RT
    Psychol Methods; 2024 Jun; 29(3):480-493. PubMed ID: 36622720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessing the fit of structural equation models with multiply imputed data.
    Enders CK; Mansolf M
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Mar; 23(1):76-93. PubMed ID: 27893216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Influence of Number of Categories and Threshold Values on Fit Indices in Structural Equation Modeling with Ordered Categorical Data.
    Xia Y; Yang Y
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2018; 53(5):731-755. PubMed ID: 30477318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Multivariate analysis of covariance for heterogeneous and incomplete data.
    Vallejo G; Fernández MP; Livacic-Rojas PE
    Psychol Methods; 2024 Aug; 29(4):731-747. PubMed ID: 36795436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The future of dynamic factor analysis in psychology and biomedicine.
    Molenaar PC
    Bull Soc Sci Med Grand Duche Luxemb; 2006; (2):201-13. PubMed ID: 17124797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Parsimony in model selection: Tools for assessing fit propensity.
    Falk CF; Muthukrishna M
    Psychol Methods; 2023 Feb; 28(1):123-136. PubMed ID: 34647757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Statistical power in two-level models: A tutorial based on Monte Carlo simulation.
    Arend MG; Schäfer T
    Psychol Methods; 2019 Feb; 24(1):1-19. PubMed ID: 30265048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Meta-analytic structural equation modeling with moderating effects on SEM parameters.
    Jak S; Cheung MW
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Aug; 25(4):430-455. PubMed ID: 31670537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Response surface analysis with multilevel data: Illustration for the case of congruence hypotheses.
    Nestler S; Humberg S; Schönbrodt FD
    Psychol Methods; 2019 Jun; 24(3):291-308. PubMed ID: 30816727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A structural equation modeling approach for modeling variability as a latent variable.
    Feng Y; Hancock GR
    Psychol Methods; 2024 Apr; 29(2):262-286. PubMed ID: 35404625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Worse than measurement error: Consequences of inappropriate latent variable measurement models.
    Rhemtulla M; van Bork R; Borsboom D
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Feb; 25(1):30-45. PubMed ID: 31169371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.