Structural equation models and the regression bias for measuring correlates of change
Abstract
ANCOVA and regression both exhibit a directional bias when measuring correlates of change. This bias confounds the comparison of changes between naturally occurring groups with large pretest differences (ANCOVA), or for identifying predictors of change when the predictor is correlated with pretest (regression). This bias is described in some detail. A computer simulation study is presented, which shows that properly identified structural equation models are not susceptible to this bias. Neither gain scores (posttest minus pretest) nor structural equation models exhibit the “regression bias.” Other factors, such as skewness, that may confound measurement of change are also discussed.
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?
The use of gain scores is justified by the quasi-experimental setup, the moderation analysis, and the research question.
“The use of gain scores is justified by both the quasi-experimental setup and the use of a moderation analysis (Cribbie and Jamieson, 2000), as well as the main research question at hand: how do the experimental and the control groups differ with regard to changes in emotional exhaustion and work engagement (Fitzmaurice et al., 2012).”
From For whom and under what circumstances does email message batching work? (2022) · cites this paper as Cribbie and Jamieson, 2000
Cites
Huitema, B. E. (2011) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118067475 · Cited by 464 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action.
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.188 · Cited by 852 · see citing works
For whom and under what circumstances does email message batching work?
Wijngaards, I., Pronk, F. R., & Burger, M. J. (2022) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2022.100494 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cribbie, R. A., & Jamieson, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Manitoba
- Lakehead University
- Venue
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 893-907
- ISSN
- 0013-1644
- 1552-3888
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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
