Skip to content

Additional approaches to incorporate #3

@stonegold546

Description

@stonegold546

Would be good to see how current program structure holds up for different models, i.e. can we retain same helper functions for different models etc ...

  • Expand the model support, i.e. reflect the diversity of models offered by (b)lavaan
    • Basically follow (b)lavaan all the way through
    • Time consuming ...
  • Regular model with no modelled residual covariance structure
  • Has global-local (generalized double Pareto) priors for non-specified cross-loadings if simple_struc = FALSE
  • Alternative priors for estimating residual covariances, initial approach is normal (ridge-style)
  • Wu & Browne (2015): https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9451-3
    • Generalized matrix beta type-II approach (Wishart->Inverse-Wishart) that similarly assumes minor factor influences, referred to as adventitious error.
    • Issues calculating log-likelihood if using GMB dist, instead of sampling Inv-Wishart
  • [x] Uanhoro (2022): https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2142128
    • Meta-analytic SEM approach (using Wu & Browne above as basis) that estimates error covariance structure.
    • [ ] Add moderators
    • [ ] Add missing data
    • Sent to bayesianmasem
  • Serious approach for modelling error in mean structures?
    • Would be useful for growth-curve models.
    • Current thinking: error in mean structures is already reflected in the residual variance parameter -- no need to model concurrently.
    • Practical approach is to compare saturated and unsaturated mean structures for fit.
  • Practical (or not too slow) approach for modelling error in non-continuous data?
    • Would be useful to have options for binary and ordinal, but these take too long.
    • Any credible moments-based (two-step) approaches so it does not take forever? Hotelling T-square?
    • Bring Archakov et al. approach over from bayesianmasem
  • Non-complete data
  • Standard multi-group models, so multi-group parameters ...
    • Or maintain that meta-analytic (hierarchical) approach is actually preferable especially once we have many groups?

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

enhancementNew feature or requestlong-runningAn issue that may never be closed, lol

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions