PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12034015

Cross-validation by downweighting influential cases in structural equation modelling.

Abstract

In the social and behavioural sciences, structural equation modelling has been widely used to test a substantive theory or causal relationship among latent constructs. Cross-validation (CV) is a valuable tool for selecting the best model among competing structural models. Influential cases or outliers are often present in practical data. Therefore, even the correct model for the majority of the data may not cross-validate well. This paper discusses various drawbacks of CV based on sample covariance matrices, and develops a procedure for using robust covariance matrices in the model calibration and validation stages. Examples illustrate that the CV index based on sample covariance matrices is very sensitive to influential cases, and even a single outlier can cause the CV index to support a wrong model. The CV index based on robust covariance matrices is much less sensitive to influential cases and thus leads to a more valid conclusion about the practical value of a model structure.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ke-Hai Yuan, Linda L Marshall, Rebecca Weston. 2002. Cross-validation by downweighting influential cases in structural equation modelling.. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711002159734

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Value of high-cost cancer care: a behavioral science perspective.

Concerns about the high costs of cancer care have led to a renewed interest in understanding how patients value the outcomes of care. Psychologists, economists, and others have highlighted some of the ways in which patients and caregivers perceive and make treatment decisions. Prospect theory is the predominant framework for understanding decisions made in situations where the outcomes of each choice are uncertain. Prospect theory assumes that a patient values the outcomes of care not in absolute terms, such as years of life saved, but as deviations from the patient's point of reference. This article discusses some of the implications of this notion, along with discussing differences among people in their reference points. These and other considerations from the psychology of decision making help to clarify why some patients might be inclined to seek expensive or risky treatments in the hopes of achieving benefits that others might consider not worthwhile. An appreciation of these psychological issues might improve the quality of debates concerning the rising costs of cancer care.

Behavioral Sciences↗