Abstract
AbstractAn overwhelming majority of articles in psychology compare means, often between multiple groups. However, sometimes we do not know the exact group membership, but only a probability to be in one of the groups. Such information may come from classifiers trained on other datasets, prevalence of group memberships for some parts of the sample, multi-level situations where the group membership is only known as a ratio in an upper level, or expert ratings (e.g., whether a person has a pathological condition or not). We present a simple method that allows to compare group means in the absence of exact knowledge about group membership and investigate the loss of information depending on the probability values theoretically and in a large-scale simulation.
Funder
Universität der Bundeswehr München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Applied Mathematics,General Psychology
Reference21 articles.
1. Bakk, Z., & Vermunt, J. K. (2015). Robustness of stepwise latent class modeling with continuous distal outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.955104.
2. Berthold, M. R., Borgelt, C., Höppner, F., & Klawonn, F. (2010). Guide to intelligent data analysis. London: Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-260-3.
3. Bolck, A., Croon, M., & Hagenaars, J. (2004). Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis, 12, 3–27.
4. Borgelt, C., Steinbrecher, M., & Kruse, R. (2009). Graphical Models. Chichester: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470749555.
5. Boruch, R. F. (1971). Assuring confidentiality of responses in social research: A note on strategies. The American Sociologist, 6(04), 308–311.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献