Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling · Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling ... Introducing Mixtures...
Transcript of Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling · Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling ... Introducing Mixtures...
Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling
Bengt Muthen & Tihomir AsparouhovMplus
www.statmodel.com
Presentation to PSMG May 6, 2014
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 1/ 50
Overview
1 A new GMM methodExamples of skew distributionsNormal mixturesIntroducing mixtures of non-normal distributionsCluster analysis with non-normal mixturesNon-normal mixtures of latent variable models:
GMM of BMI in the NLSY multiple-cohort studyGMM of BMI in the Framingham dataMath and high school dropout in the LSAY studyCat’s cradle concern
Disadvantages and advantages of non-normal mixturesMplus specifications
2 A new SEM method: Non-normal SEMPath analysisFactor analysisSEM
References:Asparouhov & Muthen (2014). Non-normal mixture modeling andSEM. Mplus Web Note No. 19. - More to come
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 2/ 50
Examples of Skewed Distributions
Body Mass Index (BMI) in obesity studies (long right tail)
Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) cognitive test inAlzheimer’s studies (long left tail)
PSA scores in prostate cancer studies (long right tail)
Ham-D score in antidepressant studies (long right tail)
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 3/ 50
Body Mass Index (BMI): kg/m2
Normal 18 < BMI < 25, Overweight 25 < BMI < 30, Obese > 30
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 4/ 50
NLSY Multiple-Cohort Data Ages 12 to 23
Accelerated longitudinal design - NLSY97
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
1997 1,165 1,715 1,847 1,868 1,709 6131998 104 1,592 1,671 1,727 1,739 1,400 1061999 108 1,659 1,625 1,721 1,614 1,370 652000 57 1,553 1,656 1,649 1,597 1,390 1322001 66 1,543 1,615 1,602 1,582 1,324 1092002 1,614 1,587 1,643 1,582 1,324 1062003 112 1,497 1,600 1,582 1,564 1,283
Totals 1,165 1,819 3,547 5,255 6,680 7,272 8,004 7,759 6,280 4,620 2,997 1,389
NLSY, National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
Source: Nonnemaker et al. (2009). Youth BMI trajectories: Evidencefrom the NLSY97, Obesity
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 5/ 50
BMI at Age 15 in the NLSY (Males, n = 3194)
14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 37 38 38 39 40 41 41 42 43 43 44 45 46 46 47 48 49 49
BMI15_2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
Cou
nt
Descriptive statistics for BMI15_2:
n = 3194Mean: 23.104 Min: 13.394
Variance: 20.068 20%-tile: 19.732Std dev.: 4.480 40%-tile: 21.142
Skewness: 1.475 Median: 22.045Kurtosis: 3.068 60%-tile: 22.955
% with Min: 0.03% 80%-tile: 25.840% with Max: 0.03% Max: 49.868
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 6/ 50
Mixtures for Male BMI at Age 15 in the NLSY
Skewness = 1.5, kurtosis = 3.1Mixtures of normals with 1-4 classes have BIC = 18,658,17,697, 17,638, 17,637 (tiny class)3-class mixture shown below
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
BMI15_2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2
0.21 0.22
Dis
tribu
tion
Class 1, 35.8%Class 2, 53.2%Class 3, 11.0%
Overall
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 7/ 50
Several Classes or One Non-Normal Distribution?
Pearson (1895)Hypertension debate:
Platt (1963): Hypertension is a ”disease” (separate class)Pickering (1968): Hypertension is merely the upper tail of askewed distribution
Schork et al (1990): Two-component mixture versus lognormal
Bauer & Curran (2003): Growth mixture modeling classes maymerely reflect a non-normal distribution so that classes have nosubstantive meaning
Muthen (2003) comment on BC: Substantive checking of classesrelated to antecedents, concurrent events, consequences (distaloutcomes), and usefulness
Multivariate case more informative than univariate
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 8/ 50
What If We Could Instead Fit The DataWith a Skewed Distribution?
Then a mixture would not be necessitated by a non-normaldistribution, but a single class may be sufficientA mixture of non-normal distributions is possible
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 9/ 50
Introducing Mixtures of Non-Normal Distributionsin Mplus Version 7.2
In addition to a mixture of normal distributions, it is now possible touse
Skew-normal: Adding a skew parameter to each variableT: Adding a degree of freedom parameter (thicker or thinnertails)Skew-T: Adding skew and df parameters (stronger skew possiblethan skew-normal)
References
Azzalini (1985), Azzalini & Dalla Valle (1996): skew-normalArellano-Valle & Genton (2010): extended skew-tMcNicholas, Murray, 2013, 2014: skew-t as a special case of thegeneralized hyperbolic distributionMcLachlan, Lee, Lin, 2013, 2014: restricted and unrestrictedskew-t
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 10/ 50
Skew T-Distribution Formulas
Y can be seen as the sum of a mean, a part that produces skewness,and a part that adds a symmetric distribution:
Y = µ +δ |U0|+U1,
where U0 has a univariate t and U1 a multivariate t distribution.Expectation, variance (δ is a skew vector, ν the df):
E(Y) = µ +δΓ(ν−1
2 )
Γ(ν
2 )
√ν
π,
Var(Y) =ν
ν−2(Σ+δδ
T)−
(Γ(ν−1
2 )
Γ(ν
2 )
)2ν
πδδ
T
Marginal and conditional distributions:
Marginal is also a skew-t distribution
Conditional is an extended skew-t distributionBengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 11/ 50
Examples of Skew-T Distributions
13.
705
14.
705
15.
705
16.
705
17.
705
18.
705
19.
705
20.
705
21.
705
22.
705
23.
705
24.
705
25.
705
26.
705
27.
705
28.
705
29.
705
30.
705
31.
705
32.
705
33.
705
34.
705
35.
705
36.
705
37.
705
38.
705
39.
705
40.
705
41.
705
42.
705
43.
705
44.
705
45.
705
46.
705
47.
705
48.
705
49.
705
50.
705
51.
705
52.
705
53.
705 0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04 0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13 0.14
Percentiles for I in Class 2:
5%-tile: 18.02610%-tile: 18.65625%-tile: 19.91650%-tile: 21.71775%-tile: 24.32790%-tile: 27.65895%-tile: 30.448
13.
705
14.
705
15.
705
16.
705
17.
705
18.
705
19.
705
20.
705
21.
705
22.
705
23.
705
24.
705
25.
705
26.
705
27.
705
28.
705
29.
705
30.
705
31.
705
32.
705
33.
705
34.
705
35.
705
36.
705
37.
705
38.
705
39.
705
40.
705
41.
705
42.
705
43.
705
44.
705
45.
705
46.
705
47.
705
48.
705
49.
705
50.
705
51.
705
52.
705
53.
705 0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
Percentiles for I in Class 1:
5%-tile: 22.16910%-tile: 22.58625%-tile: 23.83550%-tile: 26.33375%-tile: 30.22090%-tile: 35.49495%-tile: 39.936
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 12/ 50
BMI at Age 15 in the NLSY (Males, n = 3194)
Skewness = 1.5, kurtosis = 3.1Mixtures of normals with 1-4 classes: BIC = 18,658, 17,697,17,638, 17,637 (tiny class). 3-class model uses 8 parameters1-class Skew-T distribution: BIC = 17,623 (2-class BIC= 17,638). 1-class model uses 4 parameters
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 13/ 50
Mixture Modeling of the Australian Institute of Sports Data:BMI and BFAT (n = 202)
AIS data often used in the statistics literature to illustrate qualityof cluster analysis using mixtures, treating gender as unknown
Murray, Brown & McNicholas forthcoming in ComputationalStatistics & Data Analysis: ”Mixtures of skew-t factoranalyzers”:How well can we identify cluster (latent class) membershipbased on BMI and BFAT?
Compared to women, men have somewhat higher BMI andsomewhat lower BFAT
Non-normal mixture models with unrestricted means, variances,covariance
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 14/ 50
Australian Sports Institute Data on BMI and BFAT (n = 202)
Table : Comparing classes with unknown gender
Normal 2c:LL = -1098, # par.’s = 11, BIC = 2254
Class 1 Class 2Male 78 24
Female 0 100
Normal 3c:LL = -1072, # par.’s = 17, BIC = 2234
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3Male 85 1 16
Female 1 14 85
Skew-Normal 2c:LL = -1069, # par.’s = 15, BIC = 2218
Class 1 Class 2Male 84 18
Female 1 99
T 2c:LL = -1090, # par.’s = 13, BIC = 2250
Class 1 Class 2Male 95 7
Female 2 98
Skew-T 2c:LL = -1068, # par.’s = 17, BIC = 2227
Class 1 Class 2Male 95 7
Female 2 98
PMSTFA 2c:BIC = 2224
Class 1 Class 2Male 97 5
Female 5 95
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 15/ 50
Cluster Analysis by ”Mixtures of Factor Analyzers”(McLachlan)
Reduces the number of µc, Σc parameters for c = 1,2, . . .C byapplying the Σc structure of an EFA with orthogonal factors:
Σc = Λc Λ′c +Θc (1)
This leads to 8 variations by letting Λc and Θc be invariant or notacross classes and letting Θc have equality across variables or not(McNicholas & Murphy, 2008).Interest in clustering as opposed to the factors, e.g. for geneticapplications.
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 16/ 50
Non-Normal Mixtures of Latent Variable Models
Models:
Mixtures of Exploratory Factor Models (McLachlan, Lee, Lin;McNicholas, Murray)
Mixtures of Confirmatory Factor Models; FMM (Mplus)
Mixtures of SEM (Mplus)
Mixtures of Growth Models; GMM (Mplus)
Choices:
Intercepts, slopes (loadings), and residual variances invariant?
Scalar invariance (intercepts, loadings) allows factor means tovary across classes instead of intercepts (not typically used inmixtures of EFA, but needed for GMM)
Skew for the observed or latent variables? Implications for theobserved means. Latent skew suitable for GMM - the observedvariable means are governed by the growth factor means
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 17/ 50
Growth Mixture Modeling of NLSY BMI Age 12 to 23for Black Females (n = 1160)
Normal BIC: 31684 (2c), 31386 (3c), 31314 (4c), 31338 (5c)Skew-T BIC: 31411 (1c), 31225 (2c), 31270 (3c)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Class 2, 45.8%
Class 1, 54.2%
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 18/ 50
2-Class Skew-T versus 4-Class Normal
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Class 2, 45.8%
Class 1, 54.2%
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Class 1, 18.1%Class 2, 42.3%Class 3, 30.1%Class 4, 9.6%
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 19/ 50
2-Class Skew-T: Estimated Percentiles(Note: Not Growth Curves)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Percentilesshown:
5th, 10th,25th, 50th,75th, 90th,and 95th
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Percentilesshown:
5th, 10th,25th, 50th,75th, 90th,and 95th
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 20/ 50
2-Class Skew-T: Intercept Growth Factor (Age 17)
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
I
0
0.01
0.02 0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07 0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13 0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18 0.19
0.2
0.21
Dis
tribu
tion
Percentiles for I inClass 1 (low class):
5%-tile: 18.02610%-tile: 18.65625%-tile: 19.91650%-tile: 21.71775%-tile: 24.32790%-tile: 27.65895%-tile: 30.448
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
I
0
0.01
0.02 0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07 0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13 0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18 0.19
0.2
0.21
Dis
tribu
tion
Percentiles for I inClass 2 (high class):
5%-tile: 22.16910%-tile: 22.58625%-tile: 23.83550%-tile: 26.33375%-tile: 30.22090%-tile: 35.49495%-tile: 39.936
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 21/ 50
Regressing Class on a MOMED Covariate (”c ON x”):2-Class Skew-T versus 4-Class Normal
-2.5
-1.5
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
MOMED
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Pro
babi
lity
Class 1, 44.4%
Class 2, 55.6%
-2.5
-1.5
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
MOMEDU
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Pro
babi
lity
Class 1, 22.0%Class 2, 38.7%Class 3, 28.7%Class 4, 10.6%
Recall the estimated trajectory means for skew-t versus normal:
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Class 2, 45.8%
Class 1, 54.2%
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Class 1, 18.1%Class 2, 42.3%Class 3, 30.1%Class 4, 9.6%
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 22/ 50
Framingham BMI, Females Ages 25 to 65
Classic data set
Different age range: 25 to 65
Individually-varying times of observations
Quadratic growth mixture model
Normal distribution BIC is not informative:16557 (1c), 15995 (2c), 15871 (3c), 15730 (4c), 15674 (5c)
Skew-T distribution BIC points to 3 classes:15611 (1c), 15327 (2c), 15296 (3c), 15304 (4c)
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 23/ 50
Framingham BMI, Females Ages 25 to 65: 3-Class Skew-T
13%33%54%
20 30 40 50 60 70
20
25
30
35
40
45
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 24/ 50
BMI and Treatment for High Blood Pressure
BMI = kg/m2 with normal range 18.5 to 25, overweight 25 to 30,obese > 30
Risk of developing heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke,diabetes
Framingham data contains data on blood pressure treatment ateach measurement occasion
Survival component for the first treatment can be added to thegrowth mixture model with survival as a function of trajectoryclass
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 25/ 50
Parallel Process Model with Growth Mixture for BMIand Discrete-Time Survival for Blood Pressure Treatment
����� ����� �����
��� ��� ���
� �
�
Treatment probabilities are significantly different for the 3 trajectoryclasses (due to different f intercepts) and in the expected order.Probability plots can be made for each class as a function of age
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 26/ 50
GMM of BMI in the HRS Data
Health and Retirement Study (HRS) data
Different age range: 65 to death
GMM + non-ignorable dropout as a function of latent trajectoryclass
Zajacova & Ailshire (2013). Body mass trajectories andmortality among older adults: A joint growthmixture-discrete-time survival model. The Gerontologist
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 27/ 50
Growth Mixture Modeling: Math AchievementTrajectory Classes and High School Dropout.
An Example of Substantive Checking via Predictive ValidityM
ath
Ach
ieve
men
t
7 8 9 10
4060
8010
0
Grades 7-107 8 9 10
4060
8010
0Grades 7-10
7 8 9 10
4060
8010
0
Grades 7-10
Poor Development: 20% Moderate Development: 28% Good Development: 52%
Dropout: 69% 8% 1%
Source: Muthen (2003). Statistical and substantive checking ingrowth mixture modeling. Psychological Methods.
- Does the normal mixture solution hold up when checking withnon-normal mixtures?
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 28/ 50
Growth Mixture Modeling: Math AchievementTrajectory Classes and High School Dropout
����� ������
�
����� ����
�����������������
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 29/ 50
Growth Mixture Modeling: Math AchievementTrajectory Classes and High School Dropout
29.9
279
31.2
393
32.5
507
33.8
621
35.1
735
36.4
849
37.7
963
39.1
077
40.4
191
41.7
304
43.0
418
44.3
532
45.6
646
46.9
7648
.287
449
.598
850
.910
252
.221
653
.533
54.8
444
56.1
558
57.4
672
58.7
786
60.0
961
.401
462
.712
864
.024
265
.335
666
.647
67.9
584
69.2
698
70.5
812
71.8
926
73.2
0474
.515
475
.826
877
.138
278
.449
679
.761
81.0
724
82.3
838
83.6
952
85.0
066
86.3
1887
.629
488
.940
890
.252
291
.563
692
.875
94.1
864
MATH10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Cou
nt
Descriptive statistics for MATH10:
n = 2040Mean: 63.574 Min: 29.600Variance: 186.295 20%-tile: 51.430Std dev.: 13.649 40%-tile: 61.810Skewness: -0.317 Median: 65.305Kurtosis: -0.467 60%-tile: 68.400% with Min: 0.05% 80%-tile: 75.280% with Max: 0.25% Max: 95.170
(1076 missing cases were not included.)
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 30/ 50
Growth Mixture Modeling: Math AchievementTrajectory Classes and High School Dropout
Best solutions, 3 classes (LL, no. par’s, BIC):
Normal distribution: -34459, 32, 69175T distribution: -34453, 35, 69188
Skew-normal distribution: -34442, 38, 69191
Skew-t distribution: -34439, 42, 69207
Percent in low, flat class and odds ratios for dropout vs not,comparing low, flat class with the best class:
Normal distribution: 18 %, OR = 17.1
T distribution: 19 %, OR = 20.6
Skew-normal distribution: 26 %, OR = 23.8
Skew-t distribution: 26 %, OR = 37.3
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 31/ 50
Cat’s Cradle Concern
Source: Sher, Jackson, Steinley (2011). Alcohol use trajectories andthe ubiquitous cat’s cradle: Cause for concern? Journal of AbnormalPsychology.
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 32/ 50
Cat’s Cradle Concern: A Simulated Case (n = 2,000)
Data generated by a 3-class skew-t. 3-class skew-t, BIC=43566:
-0.2
25
-0.2
05
-0.1
85
-0.1
65
-0.1
45
-0.1
25
-0.1
05
-0.0
85
-0.0
65
-0.0
45
-0.0
25
-0.0
05
0.0
15
0.0
35
0.0
55
0.0
75
0.0
95
0.1
15
0.1
35
0.1
55
0.1
75
0.1
95
0.2
15 0
2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Class 1, 43.0%Class 2, 15.4%Class 3, 41.6%
4-class normal - cat’s cradle with a high/chronic class, BIC=44935:
-0.2
25
-0.2
05
-0.1
85
-0.1
65
-0.1
45
-0.1
25
-0.1
05
-0.0
85
-0.0
65
-0.0
45
-0.0
25
-0.0
05
0.0
15
0.0
35
0.0
55
0.0
75
0.0
95
0.1
15
0.1
35
0.1
55
0.1
75
0.1
95
0.2
15 0
2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Class 1, 41.9%Class 2, 3.9%
Class 3, 15.2%Class 4, 39.1%
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 33/ 50
Disadvantages of Non-Normal Mixture Modeling
Much slower computations than normal mixtures, especially forlarge sample sizes
Needs larger samples; small class sizes can create problems (butsuccessful analyses can be done at n = 100-200)
Needs more random starts than normal mixtures to replicate thebest loglikelihood
Lower entropy
Needs continuous variables
Needs continuous variables with many distinct values: Likertscales treated as continuous variables may not carry enoughinformation
Models requiring numerical integration not yet implemented(required with factors behind categorical and count variables,although maybe not enough information)
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 34/ 50
Advantages of Non-Normal Mixture Modeling
Non-normal mixtures
Can fit the data considerably better than normal mixtures
Can use a more parsimonious model
Can reduce the risk of extracting latent classes that are merelydue to non-normality of the outcomes
Can check the stability/reproducibility of a normal mixturesolution
Can describe the percentiles of skewed distributions
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 35/ 50
Mplus Specifications
DISTRIBUTION=SKEWT/SKEWNORMAL/TDIST in theANALYSIS command makes it possible to access non-normalityparameters in the MODEL command
Skew parameters are given as {y}, {f}, where the default is {f}and class-varying. Having both {y} and {f} is not identified
Degrees of freedom parameters are given as {df} where thedefault is class-varying
df < 1: mean not defined, df < 2: variance not defined, df < 3:skewness not defined. Density can still be obtained
Class-varying {f} makes it natural to specify class-varying fvariance
Normal part of the distribution can get zero variances (fixedautomatically), with only the non-normal part remaining
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 36/ 50
Mplus Input Example: NLSY BMI 2-Class Skew-T GMM
VARIABLE: NAMES = id gender age 1996 age 1997 race1 bmi12 2bmi13 2 bmi14 2 bmi15 2 bmi16 2 bmi17 2 bmi18 2 bmi19 2bmi20 2 bmi21 2 bmi22 2 bmi23 2 black hisp mixed c1 c2 c3c1 wom c2 wom c3 wom momedu par bmi bio1 bmi bio2 bmibmi par currsmkr97 bingedrnk97 mjuse97 cent msaliv2prnts adopted income hhsize97;USEVARIABLES = bmi12 2 bmi13 2 bmi14 2bmi15 2 bmi16 2 bmi17 2 bmi18 2bmi19 2 bmi20 2 bmi21 2 bmi22 2 bmi23 2;USEOBSERVATIONS = gender EQ -1;MISSING = ALL (9999);CLASSES = c(2);
ANALYSIS: TYPE = MIXTURE;STARTS = 400 80;PROCESSORS = 8;DISTRIBUTION = SKEWT;ESTIMATOR = MLR;
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 37/ 50
Mplus Input Example, Continued
MODEL: %OVERALL%i s q |bmi12 [email protected] bmi13 [email protected] bmi14 [email protected] [email protected] bmi16 [email protected] bmi17 2@0 bmi18 [email protected] [email protected] bmi20 [email protected] bmi21 [email protected] bmi22 [email protected] bmi23 [email protected];%c#1%i-q;i-q WITH i-q;
bmi12 2-bmi23 2(1);%c#2%i-q;i-q WITH i-q;bmi12 2-bmi23 2(2);
OUTPUT: TECH1 TECH4 TECH8 RESIDUAL;PLOT: TYPE = PLOT3;
SERIES = bmi12 2-bmi23 2(s);
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 38/ 50
Mplus Output Example: NLSY BMI 2-Class Skew-T GMM
Skew and Df Parameters
Latent Class 1
I 6.236 0.343 18.175 0.000S 3.361 0.542 6.204 0.000Q -2.746 1.399 -1.963 0.050
DF 3.516 0.403 8.732 0.000
Latent Class 2
I 4.020 0.279 14.408 0.000S -0.875 0.381 -2.296 0.022Q 3.399 1.281 2.653 0.008
DF 3.855 0.562 6.859 0.000
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 39/ 50
Mplus Output Example, Continued
Technical 4 Output: Estimatesderived from the model for Class 1
Estimated means for thelatent variables
I S Q1 28.138 10.516 -2.567
Estimated covariance matrix forthe latent variables
I S QI 48.167S 25.959 40.531Q -21.212 32.220 113.186
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 40/ 50
Mplus Output Example, Continued
Estimated correlation matrixfor the latent variables
I S Q
I 1.000S 0.588 1.000Q -0.287 0.476 1.000
Estimated skew for thelatent variables
I S Q1 6.653 3.437 -1.588
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 41/ 50
Single-Class (Non-Mixture) Applicationswith Non-Normal Distributions
Non-Normal SEM with Skew-normal, t, and skew-t distributions:
Allowing a more general model, including non-linear conditionalexpectation functions
Chi-square test of model fit
Percentile estimation of the factor distributions
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 42/ 50
Non-Normal SEM
ML robustness to non-normality doesn’t hold if residuals and factorsare not independent or if factors don’t have an unrestricted covariancematrix (Satorra, 2002).Asparouhov-Muthen (2014):
There is a preconceived notion that standard structuralmodels are sufficient as long as the standard errors of theparameter estimates are adjusted for failure of thenormality assumption, but this is not really correct. Evenwith robust estimation the data is reduced to means andcovariances. Only the standard errors of the parameterestimates extract additional information from the data. Theparameter estimates themselves remain the same, i.e., thestructural model is still concerned with fitting only themeans and the covariances and ignoring everything else.
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 43/ 50
Non-Normal SEM
Y = ν +Λη + ε
η = α +Bη +ΓX+ξ
where(ε,ξ )∼ rMST(0,Σ0,δ ,DF)
and
Σ0 =
(Θ 00 Ψ
).
The vector of parameters δ is of size P+M and can be decomposedas δ = (δY ,δη). From the above equations we obtain the conditionaldistributions
η |X∼ rMST((I−B)−1(α+ΓX),(I−B)−1Ψ((I−B)−1)T ,(I−B)−1
δη ,DF)
Y|η ∼ rMST(ν +Λη ,Θ,δY ,DF)
Y|X ∼ rMST(µ,Σ,δ2,DF)
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 44/ 50
SEM Chi-Square Testing with Non-Normal Distributions
Adding skew and df parameters to the means, variances, andcovariances of the unrestricted H1 model
�
�
��������� ������ �����������������
� ���� � ��� ����
�
�
� �
� �
��� ���� ��� ����
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 45/ 50
Regression of BMI17 on BMI12: Skew-T vs Normal
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 47/ 50
Indirect and Direct Effects in Mediation Modeling
Regular indirect and direct effects are not valid
Modeling non-normality and non-linearity needs the moregeneral definitions based on counterfactuals
The key component of the causal effect definitions,E[Y(x,M(x∗)|C = c,Z = z], can be expressed as follows integratingover the mediator M (C is covariate, Z is moderator, X is ”cause”):
E[Y(x,M(x∗)) | C = c,Z = z] =∫ +∞
−∞
E[Y|C = c,Z = z,X = x,M = m]× f (M;E[M|C = c,Z = z,X = x∗) ∂M.
Muthen & Asparouhov (2014). Causal effects in mediation modeling:An introduction with applications to latent variables. Forthcoming inStructural Equation Modeling.
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 48/ 50
Non-Normal Factor Distribution
Wall, Guo, & Amemiya (2012). Mixture factor analysis forapproximating a nonnormally distributed continuous latent factor withcontinuous and dichotomous observed variables. MultivariateBehavioral Research.
MIXTURE FACTOR ANALYSIS 281
(c)
(d)
FIGURE 2 (Continued).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, L
os A
ngel
es (
UC
LA
)] a
t 12:
08 0
5 A
pril
2012
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 49/ 50
Non-Normal Factor Distribution
Figure 6 of Wall et al. (2012):306 WALL, GUO, AMEMIYA
FIGURE 6 Histograms of simulated underlying factor values and factor score estimates
obtained from the normal factor model and the mixture factor model with 4 components
(Mix4) for the illustrative numerical example.
(Figure 7), the normal factor model has shrunk the large values down more than
it should (i.e., on the high end true values are larger than predicted by the normal
model) and it spreads out values on the low end more than it should (i.e., more
variability on the low end in the normal factor model predictions than there is
in the true latent factor). Both of these “misses” by the normal factor model are
corrected to some extent by the factor mixture model with 4 components. That
is, the factor score estimates from the mixture factor model line up more closely
with the true underlying factor values (bottom left of Figure 7). We further note
that the estimated probabilities of class membership found in the mixture factor
model with 4 components were 82.8%, 13.5%, 3.4%, and 0.2%. The component
with probability 0.2% included just one observation corresponding to the single
large value of the true underlying factor near 10. Thus, despite whether this
latent value might be described as an outlier or just a typical observation from a
skewed distribution (as it is here), the mixture factor model provides an accurate
predicted value for it.
DISCUSSION
In a latent factor model with both continuous and dichotomous observed vari-
ables, it was found that misspecifying the latent variable as normal and using
normal maximum likelihood leads to downward bias in the estimated path
relating the factor to the dichotomous outcome that worsens as the true la-
tent factor distribution deviates further from normality (e.g., becomes more
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, L
os A
ngel
es (
UC
LA
)] a
t 12:
08 0
5 A
pril
2012
Factor distribution can be more parsimoniously specified as skew-tthan their mixture of normals. Percentiles are obtained for theestimated distribution.
Bengt Muthen Non-Normal Growth Mixture Modeling 50/ 50