Abstract
Abstract Mixture modeling is a widely applied data analysis technique used to identify unobserved heterogeneity in a population. Despite mixture models' usefulness in practice, one unresolved issue in the application of mixture models is that there is not one commonly accepted statistical indicator for deciding on the number of classes in a study population. This article presents the results of a simulation study that examines the performance of likelihood-based tests and the traditionally used Information Criterion (ICs) used for determining the number of classes in mixture modeling. We look at the performance of these tests and indexes for 3 types of mixture models: latent class analysis (LCA), a factor mixture model (FMA), and a growth mixture models (GMM). We evaluate the ability of the tests and indexes to correctly identify the number of classes at three different sample sizes (n = 200, 500, 1,000). Whereas the Bayesian Information Criterion performed the best of the ICs, the bootstrap likelihood ratio test proved to be a very consistent indicator of classes across all of the models considered. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Karen L. Nylund's research was supported by Grant R01 DA11796 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and Bengt O. Muthén's research was supported by Grant K02 AA 00230 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). We thank Mplus for software support, Jacob Cheadle for programming expertise, and Katherine Masyn for helpful comments. Notes 1In general, the within-class covariance structure can be freed to allow within-class item covariance. a Item probabilities for categorical LCA models are specified by the probability in each cell, and the class means for the continuous LCA are specified by the value in parentheses. 2The number random starts for LCA models with categorical outcomes was specified to be "starts = 70 7;" in Mplus. The models with continuous outcomes had differing numbers of random starts. 3It is important to note that when coverage is studied, the random starts option of Mplus should not be used. If it is used, label switching may occur, in that a class for one replication might be represented by another class for another replication, therefore distorting the estimate. 4The models that presented convergence problems were those that were badly misspecified. For example, for the GMM (true k = 3 class model) for n = 500, the convergence rates for the three-, four-, and five-class models were 100%, 87%, and 68%, respectively.
Keywords
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Finite Mixture Modeling with Mixture Outcomes Using the EM Algorithm
Summary. This paper discusses the analysis of an extended finite mixture model where the latent classes corresponding to the mixture components for one set of observed variables...
Latent Class Model Diagnosis
Summary. In many areas of medical research, such as psychiatry and gerontology, latent class variables are used to classify individuals into disease categories, often with the i...
Replication of the latent class structure of Attention‐Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) subtypes in a sample of Australian twins
Background: Previous efforts to subtype Attention‐Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) using latent class analysis (LCA) applied to DSM‐IV symptom profiles of adolescent female...
REBUS‐PLS: A response‐based procedure for detecting unit segments in PLS path modelling
Abstract Structural equation models (SEMs) make it possible to estimate the causal relationships, defined according to a theoretical model, linking two or more latent complex co...
Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models.
Sources of population heterogeneity may or may not be observed. If the sources of heterogeneity are observed (e.g., gender), the sample can be split into groups and the data ana...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2007
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 535-569
- Citations
- 10080
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1080/10705510701575396