|
|
GMM with classes in addition to LGM |
|
Message/Author |
|
|
Hi, Not sure what to do if I wanted to create my classes, a LGM and examine the relationship between classes and the intercept and slope. Can you tell me what I am doing wrong. Thanks usev are a-g; !where a-d are outcome variables and e-g !are variables for the classes classes = c (2); Analysis: type=mixture; starts = 50 2; model: %overall% i s| a@0 b@1 c@2 d@3; c on i s; output:..... plot:..... series = e(1) f(2) g(3); |
|
|
Typically, c influences i and s, not the other way around. The c influence on i and s is such that i and s have different means across the classes. You will have this model as the default if you say only i s | etc in the overall part of the model. If in contrast you really intend to have c influence i and s, you should have observed indicators of c. And you should also specify the model so that the means of i and s do not vary across the classes - if not, you have a reciprocal interaction loop problem where c influences i and s and i and s influence c. |
|
Diane Chen posted on Monday, November 22, 2010 - 7:57 am
|
|
|
I am interested in looking at how class membership for one GGMM model (2-class, treated as observed/hard binned) predicts intercept/slope in LGM for another variable. Here is my input: MODEL: vi vs vq| Var14t@-4 Var15t@-3 Var16t@-2 Var17t@-1 Var18t@0 Var19t@1 Var20t@2 Var21t@3 Var22t@4 Var23t@5 Var24t@6 Var25t@7; vi vs vq ON RPIclass; Results indicate that vi ON RPIclass is significant Est/SE = -2.376, p=.018. I'm not sure how exactly to interpret this finding. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! |
|
|
If say RPIclass=1 means high trajectory vs 0 being low trajectory, this says that a high trajectory membership leads to a lower intercept growth factor than the low trajectory membership. |
|
Back to top |
|
|