Testing number of latent classes PreviousNext
Mplus Discussion > Latent Variable Mixture Modeling >
 Anonymous posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:20 am
The univariate theory of Lo-Mendell-Rubin test for normal mixture is in article 'Testing the numer of components in a normal mixture(Biometrika 2001).

MPLUS calculate the test for multivariate cases. How it's configured and where I could find related theory.
 bmuthen posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 7:37 am
The multivariate case is a direct generalization of the univariate case. There is no writing on this. See also Vuong's original article that LMR refer to.
 craig neumann posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 8:55 am
Are there any Mplus examples which show how to test for best fit between a latent class model (LCM) and a latent trait model (LTM). In other words, could one use a set of four indicators and test whether a two class LCM provided better fit than a simple CFA where the indicators simply loaded onto a continuous latent variable (LTM). My understand thus far is that a fair test would involve a LTM with two graded levels versus a LCM with two classes
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 10:44 am
See the following paper:

Muthén, B. & Asparouhov, T. (2006). Item response mixture modeling: Application to tobacco dependence criteria. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 1050-1066.
 Paul Widdop posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 7:21 am
Good Afternoon,

I am looking at participation in different sporting activities. I have participation habits (binary yes no) for 15 activities, but believe there to be a latent element that explains the types of individuals that partake.

I am using the following script......

Stata2Mplus conversion for p:\methodology\sport.dta
File is p:\methodology\sport.dat ;
Names are
snooker darts football fishing outdoor wintersp water tennis badmin
squash cycling fitness cricket golf horserid yoga tenpin jog;
Missing are all (-9999) ;
USEVARIABLES swimming snooker darts football outdoor
wintersp water tennis badmin cycling fitness cricket golf
tenpin jog ethnic;
CATEGORICAL swimming snooker darts football newoutdo wintersp
water tennis badmin cycling fitness cricket golf tenpin jog ethnic;
CLASSES = C (4);

Type = mixture;


However, in previous work of this nature scholars have placed into the model a local dependency between the swimming and fitness activities, but I am unsure of how do this, I was wondering if anybody here could point me in the right direction.


 Linda K. Muthen posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 8:22 am
See Example 7.16.
 Paul Widdop posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 8:53 am
Thanks Linda,

 Paul Widdop posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 10:12 am
Good Evening Linda,

Sorry to bother you again. I have ran my model using the example 7.16, and does improve my model fit.

Unfortunately I am a novice with Mplus, when I run the model with a local dependancy, the model results in the output identify thresholds for my latent classes but does not give me results in the probability scale. I guess my question is can I get these results in the probability scale from the model in 7.16.

Many thanks,

 Linda K. Muthen posted on Sunday, March 09, 2008 - 10:15 am
You will not get the results in probability scale when numerical integration is used. You will need to compute the probabilities yourself for the items not included in the local dependency. For the items included in the local dependency, computing the probabilities would require numerical integration.
 Paul Widdop posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 9:43 am
Thanks Linda,

I have computed the probabilities for the items not included in the local dependency, but unsure of the method for calculating the probabilities of the items included in the local dependency. Especially using numerical integration, can I do this in MPLUS?

Many thanks

 Linda K. Muthen posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 10:47 am
These cannot be computed by hand and Mplus does not compute them.
 Rachel posted on Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 4:36 am

I have a question.

How can I compare fitnesses between two non-nested models?
One has 3 classes and another has no class(=1class).

I think these models are not nested.

Can I use Vuong test for these models by Mplus?

 Michael Spaeth posted on Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 7:53 am
First of all, I would use a stepwise approach, namely, testing your single class model against two classes. Then three classes against two and so on.

You can use BIC or aBIC to compare non-nested class models regardless of the stepwise approach I suggested.
However, Vuong test (as far as I know) requires a stepwise approach as described above, because it tests a k-class model against a (k-1)-class model. You can request Vuong-test via "tech11".
 Michael Daniels  posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 1:57 pm
Is it possible to test differences between, say, a 3-class model and 1-class model? I understand that the stepwise approach has been recommended, but I have a marginally significant 3 class model (using the Vuong test) and a non-significant 2 class model. I would like to show that the 3-class model fits better than the 1-class. Any help or references regarding this would be appreciated.
 Michael Spaeth posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 1:54 am
Regarding Vuong test: it can happen that it's p-value bounces across various class models. However, once Vuong test has rejected let's say two classes you can irgnore significant p-values for 3 or 4 classes. That's why a stepwise approach is recommended when using tech11. In your case vuong test clearly points to a single class model.
If you don't want to rely on tech11 alone you can use BIC to compare a single class model vs. 3 classes. You should also consider using BLRT (tech14). But here I would also test in a stepwise fashion.
 Bengt O. Muthen posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 5:24 pm
I agree. And there is not a way in Mplus to test a 3-class model against a 1-class model using Tech11 or Tech14.
 Peter Halpin posted on Monday, October 18, 2010 - 2:58 am
Hi, I am using Mplus to run some MC simulations with misspecified mixtures and I have a quick question related to the Vuoung-Lo-Mendel-Rubin test.

The test requires evaluation of a weighted sum of chi-square(1) variables, the distribution of which is stated by Lo Mendel and Rubin (2001).

This same test distribution can ostensibly be used to for other hypotheses about strictly nested and possibly misspecified models.

I am wondering if there is a way to ask Mplus to evaluate the weighted sum chi-square for an arbitrary pair of models. Alternatively, given either the partial derivatives of the log likelihoods or the weights themselves, can I use Mplus to compute the weighted chi-square probabilities? If possible I would like to do this within Mplus since I am running a large number of simulations.

Thanks for your time.
 Peter Halpin posted on Monday, October 18, 2010 - 6:50 am
On a related note, does Mplus output the first-order derivatives of the loglikelihood evaluated at the ML estimates for each observation? And the Hessian of the loglikelihood at the ML estimates? I am having a hard time finding these options if they exist.

Thanks again
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Monday, October 18, 2010 - 9:37 am
No, their is no way currently to use weighted sum chi-square for an arbitrary pair of models.

The only thing that comes to mind is the LOGLIKELIHOOD setting of the OUTLIER option. Mplus does not give the Hessian of the loglikelihood at the ML estimates.
 Peter Halpin posted on Monday, October 18, 2010 - 12:26 pm
Thanks for your reply. Guess I'll have to do it the hard way : )
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message