Title |
Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models?
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-159 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Leslie A Hayduk, Levente Littvay |
Abstract |
Structural equation modeling developed as a statistical melding of path analysis and factor analysis that obscured a fundamental tension between a factor preference for multiple indicators and path modeling's openness to fewer indicators. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Hungary | 1 | 13% |
Denmark | 1 | 13% |
United States | 1 | 13% |
Australia | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 6 | 75% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Members of the public | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,009 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Malaysia | 10 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
Spain | 3 | <1% |
Portugal | 2 | <1% |
United States | 2 | <1% |
Brazil | 2 | <1% |
Canada | 2 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Sweden | 1 | <1% |
Other | 6 | <1% |
Unknown | 976 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 374 | 37% |
Student > Master | 102 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 82 | 8% |
Lecturer | 65 | 6% |
Researcher | 53 | 5% |
Other | 187 | 19% |
Unknown | 146 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Business, Management and Accounting | 313 | 31% |
Social Sciences | 169 | 17% |
Psychology | 101 | 10% |
Computer Science | 49 | 5% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 40 | 4% |
Other | 131 | 13% |
Unknown | 206 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,448,853
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#966
of 2,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,629
of 184,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 184,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.