TY - JOUR
T1 - Latent logistic interaction modeling:
T2 - A simulation and empirical illustration of Type D personality
AU - Lodder, Paul
AU - Emons, Wilco H.M.
AU - Denollet, Johan
AU - Wicherts, Jelte M.
N1 - Funding
The research of J.M. Wicherts was funded by the European Research
Council (Grant nr: 726361) as part of the programme: H2020-EU.1.1. -
EXCELLENT SCIENCE.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - This study focuses on three popular methods to model interactions between two constructs containing measurement error in predicting an observed binary outcome: logistic regression using (1) observed scores, (2) factor scores, and (3) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). It is still unclear how they compare with respect to bias and precision in the estimated interaction when item scores underlying the interaction constructs are skewed and ordinal. In this article, we investigated this issue using both a Monte Carlo simulation and an empirical illustration of the effect of Type D personality on cardiac events. Our results indicated that the logistic regression using SEM performed best in terms of bias and confidence interval coverage, especially at sample sizes of 500 or larger. Although for most methods bias increased when item scores were skewed and ordinal, SEM produced relatively unbiased interaction effect estimates when items were modeled as ordered categorical.
AB - This study focuses on three popular methods to model interactions between two constructs containing measurement error in predicting an observed binary outcome: logistic regression using (1) observed scores, (2) factor scores, and (3) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). It is still unclear how they compare with respect to bias and precision in the estimated interaction when item scores underlying the interaction constructs are skewed and ordinal. In this article, we investigated this issue using both a Monte Carlo simulation and an empirical illustration of the effect of Type D personality on cardiac events. Our results indicated that the logistic regression using SEM performed best in terms of bias and confidence interval coverage, especially at sample sizes of 500 or larger. Although for most methods bias increased when item scores were skewed and ordinal, SEM produced relatively unbiased interaction effect estimates when items were modeled as ordered categorical.
KW - Factor score regression
KW - Interaction effect
KW - Logistic regression
KW - Structural equation modeling
KW - Type D personality
UR - https://app-eu.readspeaker.com/cgi-bin/rsent?customerid=10118&lang=en_us&readclass=rs_readArea&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Ffull%2F10.1080%2F10705511.2020.1838905&dict=math&rule=math&xslrule=math
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85097086301&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/10705511.2020.1838905
DO - 10.1080/10705511.2020.1838905
M3 - Article
SN - 1070-5511
VL - 28
SP - 440
EP - 462
JO - Structural Equation Modeling
JF - Structural Equation Modeling
IS - 3
ER -