Robustness of Latent Profile Analysis to Measurement Noninvariance Between Profiles

2021 ◽  
pp. 001316442199789
Author(s):  
Yan Wang ◽  
Eunsook Kim ◽  
Zhiyao Yi

Latent profile analysis (LPA) identifies heterogeneous subgroups based on continuous indicators that represent different dimensions. It is a common practice to measure each dimension using items, create composite or factor scores for each dimension, and use these scores as indicators of profiles in LPA. In this case, measurement models for dimensions are not included and potential noninvariance across latent profiles is not modeled in LPA. This simulation study examined the robustness of LPA in terms of class enumeration and parameter recovery when the noninvariance was unmodeled by using composite or factor scores as profile indicators. Results showed that correct class enumeration rates of LPA were relatively high with small degree of noninvariance, large class separation, large sample size, and equal proportions. Severe bias in profile indicator mean difference was observed with intercept and loading noninvariance, respectively. Implications for applied researchers are discussed.

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 4127-4147
Author(s):  
Jean K. Gordon

Purpose Spontaneous speech tasks are critically important for characterizing spoken language production deficits in aphasia and for assessing the impact of therapy. The utility of such tasks arises from the complex interaction of linguistic demands (word retrieval, sentence formulation, articulation). However, this complexity also makes spontaneous speech hugely variable and difficult to assess. The current study aimed to simplify the problem by identifying latent factors underlying performance in spontaneous speech in aphasia. The ecological validity of the factors was examined by examining how well the factor structures corresponded to traditionally defined aphasia subtypes. Method A factor analysis was conducted on 17 microlinguistic measures of narratives from 274 individuals with aphasia in AphasiaBank. The resulting factor scores were compared across aphasia subtypes. Supervised (linear discriminant analysis) and unsupervised (latent profile analysis) classification techniques were then conducted on the factor scores and the solutions compared to traditional aphasia subtypes. Results Six factors were identified. Two reflected aspects of fluency, one at the phrase level (Phrase Building) and one at the narrative level (Narrative Productivity). Two other factors reflected the accuracy of productions, one at the word level (Semantic Anomaly) and one at the utterance level (Grammatical Error). The other two factors reflected the complexity of sentence structures (Grammatical Complexity) and the use of repair behaviors (Repair), respectively. Linear discriminant analyses showed that only about two thirds of speakers were classified correctly and that misclassifications were similar to disagreements between clinical diagnoses. The most accurately diagnosed syndromes were the largest groups—Broca's and anomic aphasia. The latent profile analysis also generated profiles similar to Broca's and anomic aphasia but separated some subtypes according to severity. Conclusions The factor solution and the classification analyses reflected broad patterns of spontaneous speech performance in a large and representative sample of individuals with aphasia. However, such data-driven approaches present a simplified picture of aphasia patterns, much as traditional syndrome categories do. To ensure ecological validity, a hybrid approach is recommended, balancing population-level analyses with examination of performance at the level of theoretically specified subgroups or individuals. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13232354


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Johann Bernhard Lehmann ◽  
Craig S. Neumann ◽  
Robert Douglas Hare ◽  
Jürgen Biedermann ◽  
Klaus-Peter Dahle ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document