Which estimation method to choose in network psychometrics? Deriving guidelines for applied researchers.

Adela‐Maria Isvoranu · Sacha Epskamp

406 citations0/0 files storedPsychological Methods

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Mental Health Research Topics Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Abstract

The Gaussian graphical model (GGM) has recently grown popular in psychological research, with a large body of estimation methods being proposed and discussed across various fields of study, and several algorithms being identified and recommend as applicable to psychological data sets. Such high-dimensional model estimation, however, is not trivial, and algorithms tend to perform differently in different settings. In addition, psychological research poses unique challenges, including placing a strong focus on weak edges (e.g., bridge edges), handling data measured on ordered scales, and relatively limited sample sizes. As a result, there is currently no consensus regarding which estimation procedure performs best in which setting. In this large-scale simulation study, we aimed to overcome this gap in the literature by comparing the performance of several estimation algorithms suitable for Gaussian and skewed ordered categorical data across a multitude of settings, as to arrive at concrete guidelines from applied researchers. In total, we investigated 60 different metrics across 564,000 simulated data sets. We summarized our findings through a platform that allows for manually exploring simulation results. Overall, we found that an exchange between discovery (e.g., sensitivity, edge weight correlation) and caution (e.g., specificity, precision) should always be expected, and achieving both-which is a requirement for perfect replicability-is difficult. Further, we identified that the estimation method is best chosen in light of each research question and have highlighted, alongside desirable asymptotic properties and low sample size discovery, results according to most common research questions in the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 406 citations exist upstream.

References

2010Development and Distortion of Malaysian Public- Private Partnerships: Patronage, Privatised Profits and Pitfalls DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 8500.2009.00655.x 1990An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure.2016Estimating Psychological Networks and their Accuracy: A Tutorial Paper 2012qgraph : Network Visualizations of Relationships in Psychometric Data 1993The structure of phenotypic personality traits.1997Personality trait structure as a human universal.2018A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks.1984A General Structural Equation Model with Dichotomous, Ordered Categorical, and Continuous Latent Variable Indicators

Cited by

2024Network analysis: An overview for mental health research 2023Comparing community detection algorithms in psychometric networks: A Monte Carlo simulation 2023Unique Variable Analysis: A Network Psychometrics Method to Detect Local Dependence 2022Possible Futures for Network Psychometrics 2022The architecture of psychological well‐being: A network analysis study of the Ryff Psychological Well‐Being Scale

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.