Last updated: 2019-10-31
Checks: 2 0
Knit directory: mcfa-fit/
This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.4.0). The Checks tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The Past versions tab lists the development history.
Great! Since the R Markdown file has been committed to the Git repository, you know the exact version of the code that produced these results.
Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility. The version displayed above was the version of the Git repository at the time these results were generated.
Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results (you can use wflow_publish
or wflow_git_commit
). workflowr only checks the R Markdown file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results were generated:
Ignored files:
Ignored: .RData
Ignored: .RDataTmp
Ignored: .Rhistory
Ignored: .Rproj.user/
Untracked files:
Untracked: analysis/fit_boxplots_shiny-app.Rmd
Untracked: code/fit-dist-app/
Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.
These are the previous versions of the R Markdown and HTML files. If you’ve configured a remote Git repository (see ?wflow_git_remote
), click on the hyperlinks in the table below to view them.
File | Version | Author | Date | Message |
---|---|---|---|---|
Rmd | 3524c69 | noah-padgett | 2019-10-31 | new shiny app |
html | a275069 | noah-padgett | 2019-10-19 | Build site. |
Rmd | 6ee3d83 | noah-padgett | 2019-10-18 | updated estimation methods and ROC files |
html | 6ee3d83 | noah-padgett | 2019-10-18 | updated estimation methods and ROC files |
html | b534b90 | noah-padgett | 2019-09-29 | updated publish |
Rmd | ba44658 | noah-padgett | 2019-09-29 | wflow_git_commit(all = T) |
html | ba44658 | noah-padgett | 2019-09-29 | wflow_git_commit(all = T) |
html | 982c8f1 | noah-padgett | 2019-05-18 | roc analyses completed |
Rmd | 4a2f40d | noah-padgett | 2019-05-10 | fixed index page and updated roc file |
Rmd | 45139bc | noah-padgett | 2019-05-09 | fix merge error |
html | db10eaf | noah-padgett | 2019-05-09 | Merge branch ‘master’ of https://github.com/noah-padgett/mcfa-fit |
Rmd | f6f9e91 | noah-padgett | 2019-05-09 | fixed merge error |
html | fb03a30 | noah-padgett | 2019-05-09 | Build site. |
Rmd | 54bff7b | noah-padgett | 2019-05-09 | anova-results reran |
html | a65ec99 | noah-padgett | 2019-05-09 | fixed link to boxplots |
html | a1b0dc1 | noah-padgett | 2019-05-08 | Build site. |
Rmd | b794176 | noah-padgett | 2019-05-08 | updated tables and figures |
html | 6fd16ed | noah-padgett | 2019-05-08 | Build site. |
html | 584d1b0 | noah-padgett | 2019-05-08 | Build site. |
Rmd | f22b9e3 | noah-padgett | 2019-05-08 | summary tables recreated |
html | 3fda82a | noah-padgett | 2019-05-07 | Build site. |
Rmd | 7bd985f | noah-padgett | 2019-05-07 | update homepage |
html | 451ccf7 | noah-padgett | 2019-05-07 | Build site. |
Rmd | 8b2f44d | noah-padgett | 2019-05-07 | intial commit |
Rmd | 3ffee99 | noah-padgett | 2019-05-07 | Start workflowr project. |
Welcome to our research website. This site contains the results of our Monte Carlo simulation study that compares fit indices across robust estimation methods in multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (ML-CFA) models. There are few studies that have examined these complex models and even fewer that have focused on the performance of fit indices.
Below contains various pages for the different aspects of the project. The pages are broken up into what we considered logical sections of the results. Not all of the results shown here are reported in the manuscript. This limitation is mostly due to space restrictions in the actual manuscript.
Below are links to pages that give more technical details on each of the fit indices investigatedin our study. We have tried to include much of the information that we could not include in the actual manuscript given the space limitations specified by the journal. Each page goes through the how the index designed and a basic description of what conclusion we expected for the utility of the index in multilevel settings.
One downside of writing this article from a practicioner oriented perspective is that many of the technical details on estimation were severely glossed over in the actual manuscript. We know many readers of SEM will find interest in a deeper discussion of this part of the research which we did not dive deeply into in this paper. In the following pages, we will outline more of the technical details of each of the estimation methods chosen and discuss what potential benefits/limitations each has on the fit indices investigated. We try to treat this part as rigorously as possible, but understand that this is a very complex topic and we try to break down each estimation method to the major differences for discussion purposes.
*Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance Adjusted (WLSMV)
*Unweighted Least Squares Mean and Variance Adjusted (ULSMV)