• 学术搜索
  • 科研智能体
    • Research Labs
    • AI 阅读
    • AI 文库
    • 深度研究
    • 学者亮点
  • 学术资源
    • AI2000
    • 期刊/会议
    • 学者库
    • 学术API
      MCP&Skill
    • 溯源树
    • 数据集
  • 知识沉淀
    • 学术空间
订阅小程序
旧版功能
aminer vip
开通会员低至0.73元/天
一次搞定AI科研
立即登录
  • English
  • 联系方式
    Psychological methods

    Psychological methods

    JournalISSN 1082-989XeISSN 1939-1463中科院 心理学 1区

    年发文量

    研究主题

    论文(1392)

    排序
    1NewThe Semipartial Correlation Needs No Correction. Comment on Park and Yi (2025).
    Peter de Heus
    2026
    引用
    AI阅读
    加入学术空间
    2NewStructural-before/after-measurement Approaches for Estimating Treatment Effects in Latent Outcomes with Causal Machine Learning.
    Amota Ataneka,Benjamin Kelcey, Jean Baptiste Habarurema
    2026
    引用
    AI阅读
    加入学术空间
    3NewWithin-person Reliability of Composite Scores or Single-Item Responses with Missing Intensive Longitudinal Data.
    Daniel McNeish

    Intensive longitudinal data (ILD) are commonly used to study within-person processes, and psychometric methods for computing within-person reliability with ILD have recently appeared in the methodological literature. The dense, frequent nature of data collection in ILD often leads to copious amounts of missing data-recent reviews find that 30%-40% missing data rates are typical. However, given the nascent state of psychometrics for ILD, the intersection of psychometrics and missing ILD has yet to be explored despite the pervasiveness of missing ILD in empirical studies. In addition, given that ILD are frequently used to study sensitive topics such as mental health and substance use, there is a heightened risk of missing not at random (MNAR) data. That is, the reason data are missing is associated with what the value would have been (e.g., depression responses are missing when a person is momentarily too depressed to respond). The goal of this article is to (a) clarify how missing values affect estimates of within-person reliability with ILD and (b) to extend one recently proposed method (the measurement error autoregressive model) with a Diggle-Kenward selection process to evaluate sensitivity to a potential MNAR mechanism. Simulations in the article find that the accuracy of within-person reliability estimates from standard approaches can deteriorate when missing data are present, but the proposed model can better recover population within-person reliability-even with a large amount of MNAR data-under the conditions and missingness mechanisms studied. Limitations and extensions to other methods for computing within-person reliability are also discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

    2026
    引用
    AI阅读
    加入学术空间
    4NewColumnwise Neural Imputation for Incomplete Ordinal Psychometric Data.
    Longfei Zhang,Minjeong Jeon,Ping Chen

    Missing data are pervasive in psychological and educational assessments. Naive remedies, including listwise deletion and item-mean imputation, often degrade research validity and misinform subsequent decisions. Recent advances in artificial neural networks have demonstrated their efficacy in prediction-related tasks by using observed features to infer unknown values. Building on this potential, we propose the columnwise neural imputation (COLNI) algorithm to impute missing ordinal responses in psychometric data. Simulation studies demonstrated that, when benchmarked against conventional methods, COLNI more accurately recovered item means, inter-item correlations, and person and item parameters under the multidimensional graded response model. We further evaluated COLNI using data from the Short Dark Triad test, confirming its effectiveness in a multidimensional empirical setting. We conclude with implementation guidelines and avenues for refining and extending this artificial neural network-based imputation approach in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

    2026
    引用
    AI阅读
    加入学术空间
    5NewAdjustment Set Selection for Estimating Optimal Treatment Rules under Confounding.
    Nina Galanter,Susan M Shortreed,Erica E M Moodie

    There is an increasing call for individualized treatment rules, which leverage individual patient characteristics to recommend treatments or interventions, tailoring recommendations based on their covariates. This is particularly of interest for the care of conditions such as depression, for which many treatment options are available with similar average effectiveness but with large heterogeneity in individual responses. In parallel, there has been a growing interest in machine learning methods for causal inference and variable selection. We compared several strategies for variable adjustment in a dynamic marginal structural modeling approach to estimating an optimal individualized treatment rule and investigated the performance of outcome adaptive lasso, group lasso and doubly robust estimation, double-index propensity score, the high-dimensional balancing propensity score, and the causal ball lasso as variable selection methods for the propensity score. Our results demonstrate that these all provided similar unbiased estimates. However, methods differed in their ability to exclude extraneous variables and in computational burden. We found statistical efficiency is gained when variable selection approaches were for the propensity score were used and by including variables in the outcome model. We applied all methods to determine the optimal treatment rule, treating with either selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, for unipolar depression in individuals aged 13 years and older. This analysis, which used electronic health records from 74,058 Kaiser Permanente Washington patients with a new antidepressant dispensing between 2008 and 2018, suggested tailoring treatment based on baseline symptom severity did not impact symptom severity 6 months later. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

    2026
    引用
    AI阅读
    加入学术空间
    立即登录,查看全部 1392 篇论文

    高被引作者

    作者引用发文
    Robert C. Maccallum2217010
    Kristopher J. Preacher2103517
    Joseph L. Schafer199794
    Niall Bolger179684
    Patrick E. Shrout166055
    John W. Graham165552
    Duane Wegener157032
    Leandre R. Fabrigar157011
    Erin J. Strahan157011
    Stephen West1388012

    高产作者

    作者引用发文
    Daniel John Bauer576321
    Herbert Hoijtink84419
    Kristopher J. Preacher2103517
    Dan McNeish608617
    Ken Kelley692016
    Francis Tuerlinckx128116
    Douglas Steinley188016
    Craig Enders853715
    Eric-Jan Wagenmakers112014
    Scott E. Maxwell508814

    相关期刊

    Educational and psychological measurement
    Structural Equation Modeling
    Methodology : European journal of research methods for the behavioral & social sciences
    Advances in methods and practices in psychological science
    Multivariate Behavioral Research
    Psychometrika
    European Journal of Psychological Assessment
    QUANTITATIVE METHODS FOR PSYCHOLOGY
    British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
    COLLABRA-PSYCHOLOGY