The impact of misspecifying class-specific residual variances in growth mixture models
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of misspecifying a growth mixture model (GMM) by assuming that Level-1 residual variances are constant across classes, when they do, in fact, vary in each subpopulation. Misspecification produced bias in the within-class growth trajectories and variance components, and estimates were substantially less precise than those obtained from a correctly specified GMM. Bias and precision became worse as the ratio of the largest to smallest Level-1 residual variances increased, class proportions became more disparate, and the number of class-specific residual variances in the population increased. Although the Level-1 residuals are typically of little substantive interest, these results suggest that researchers should carefully estimate and report these parameters in published GMM applications.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
BIC tends to overestimate the number of classes.
“BIC tends to overestimate the number of classes (Enders and 227 Tofighi, 2008; Henson et al., 2007; Nylund et al., 2007).”
From Time in treatment: Examining mental illness trajectories across inpatient psychiatric treatment (2020) · cites this paper as Enders and Tofighi, 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 27 · Cited by 135
- Authors
- Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Venue
- Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-01-11
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-95
- ISSN
- 1070-5511 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8007
- OpenAlex
- W1989470692
- Cited by
- 135
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 3.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Methods and Mixture Models
- Keywords
- growth mixture modeling, model misspecification, variance components, estimation bias, estimation precision
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