Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 532

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Investigating the performance of exploratory graph analysis and traditional techniques to identify the number of latent factors: A simulation and tutorial.

Open access
Golino, Hudson, Shi, Dingjing, Christensen, Alexander P., Garrido, Luis Eduardo, Nieto, Maria Dolores, Sadana, Ritu, Thiyagarajan, Jotheeswaran Amuthavalli, Martinez-Molina, Agustin·2020·Psychological Methods

Abstract

Exploratory graph analysis (EGA) is a new technique that was recently proposed within the framework of network psychometrics to estimate the number of factors underlying multivariate data. Unlike other methods, EGA produces a visual guide-network plot-that not only indicates the number of dimensions to retain, but also which items cluster together and their level of association. Although previous studies have found EGA to be superior to traditional methods, they are limited in the conditions considered. These issues are addressed through an extensive simulation study that incorporates a wide range of plausible structures that may be found in practice, including continuous and dichotomous data, and unidimensional and multidimensional structures. Additionally, two new EGA techniques are presented: one that extends EGA to also deal with unidimensional structures, and the other based on the triangulated maximally filtered graph approach (EGAtmfg). Both EGA techniques are compared with 5 widely used factor analytic techniques. Overall, EGA and EGAtmfg are found to perform as well as the most accurate traditional method, parallel analysis, and to produce the best large-sample properties of all the methods evaluated. To facilitate the use and application of EGA, we present a straightforward R tutorial on how to apply and interpret EGA, using scores from a well-known psychological instrument: the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/met0000255

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 58 references

Cited by

See all 532

Metadata

Authors
Golino, H., Shi, D., Christensen, A. P., Garrido, L. E., Nieto, M. D., Sadana, R., Thiyagarajan, J. A., & Martinez-Molina, A.
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2020-06
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
292-320
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W3012407112
Cited by
532
References
58
FWCI
34.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Investigating the performance of exploratory graph analysis and traditional techniques to identify the number of latent factors: A simulation and tutorial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/met0000255
The paper
Golino, H., Shi, D., Christensen, A. P., Garrido, L. E., Nieto, M. D., Sadana, R., Thiyagarajan, J. A., & Martinez-Molina, A. (2020). Investigating the performance of exploratory graph analysis and traditional techniques to identify the number of latent factors: A simulation and tutorial. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000255

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.