Author: Anatomise Biostats

With any postulated statistical model it is imperative to assess and validate the model fit before concluding in favour of the integrity of the model and interpreting results. The acceptable way to do this across all structural equation models is the chi squared (χ²) statistic.

A statistically significant χ² statistic is indicative of the following:

• A systematically miss-specified model with the degree of misspecification a function of the χ² value.
• The set of parameters specified in the model do not adequately fit the data and thus that the parameter estimates of the model are inaccurate. As χ² operates on the same statistical principles as the parameter estimation, it follows that in order to trust the parameter estimates of the model we must also trust the χ², or vice versa.

•  As a consequence there is a need for an investigation of where these misspecification have occurred and a potential readjustment of the model to improve its accuracy.

While one or more incorrect hypotheses may have caused the model misspecification, the misspecification could equally have resulted from other causes. It is important to thus investigate the causes of a significant model fit test ​. In order to properly do this the following should be evaluated:

• Heterogeneity:
•  Does the causal model vary between sub groups of subjects?
• Are there any intervening within subject variables?

• Independence:
• Are the observations truly independent?

• Latent variable models involve two key assumptions: that all manifest variables are independent after controlling for any latent variables and, an individual’s position on a manifest variable is the result of that individual’s position on the corresponding latent variable (3).

• Multivariate normality:
• Is the multivariate normality assumption satisfied?

​
The study:

A 2015 meta-analysis of 75 latent variable studies drawn from 11 psychology journals has highlighted a tendency in clinical researchers to ignore the χ² exact fit statistic when reporting and interpreting the results of the statistical analysis of latent variable models (4).
97% of papers reported at least one appropriate model, despite the fact that 80% of these did not pass the criteria for model fit and the χ² exact fit statistic was ignored. Only 2% of overall studies concluded that the model doesn’t fit at all and one of these interpreted a model anyway (4).
Reasons for ignoring the model fit statistic: overly sensitive to sample size, penalises models when number of variables is high, general objection to the logic of exact fit hypothesis. Overall broach consensus of preference for Approximate fit indices (AFI).
AFI are instead applied in these papers to justify the models. This typically leads to questionable conclusions. In all just 41% of studies reported χ² model fit results. 40% of the studies that failed to report a p value for the reported χ² value did report a degrees of freedom. When this degrees of freedom was used to cross check the unreported p values, all non-reported p values were in fact significant.
The model fit function was usually generated through maximum likelihood methods, however 43% of studies failed to report which fit function was used.
A further tendency to accept the approximate fit hypothesis when in fact there was no or little evidence of approximate fit. This lack of thorough model examination empirical evidence of questionable validity. 30% of studies showed custom selection of more lax cut-off criteria for the approximate fit statistics than was conventionally acceptable, while 53% failed to report on cut-off criteria at all.
Assumption testing for univariate normality was assessed in only 24% of studies (4).
Further explanation of  χ² and model fit:

The larger the data set the more that increasingly trivial discrepancies are detected as a source of model misspecification. This does not mean that trivial discrepancies become more important to the model fit calculation, it means that the level of certainty with which these discrepancies can be considered important has increased. In other words, the statistical power has increased. Model misspecification can be the result of both theoretically relevant and irrelevant/peripheral causal factors which both need to be equally addressed. A significant model fit statistic indicating model misspecification is not trivial just because the causes of the misspecification are trivial. It is instead the case that trivial causes are having a significant effect and thus there is a significant need for them to be addressed. The χ² model fit test is the most sensitive way to detect misspecification in latent variable models and should be adhered to above other methods even when sample size is high. In the structural equation modelling context of multiple hypotheses, a rejection of model fit does not result in the necessary rejection of each of the models hypotheses (4).
Problems with AFI:

The AFI statistic does provide a conceptually heterogeneous set of fit indices for each hypothesis, however none of these indices are accompanied by a critical value or significance level and all except one arise from unknown distributions. The fit indices are a function of χ² but unlike the χ²  fit statistic they do not have a verified statistical basis nor do they present a statistically rigorous test of model fit. Despite this satisfactory AFI values across hypotheses are being used to justify the invalidity of a significant χ² test.
Mote Carlo simulations of AFI concluded that it is not possible to determine universal cut off criteria in any forms of model tested.  Using AFI, the probability of correctly rejecting a mis-specified model decreased with increasing sample size. This is the inverse of the  statistic. Another problem with AFI compared to χ²  is that the more severe the model misspecification or correlated errors, the more unpredictable the AFI become. Again this is the inverse of what happens with the χ²  statistic (4).
The take away:

Based on the meta-analysis the following best practice principles are recommended in addition to adequate attention to the statistical assumptions of heterogeneity, independence and multivariate normality outlined above:

1. Pay attention to distributional assumptions.
2. Have a theoretical justification for your model.
3. Avoid post hoc model modifications such as dropping indicators, allowing cross-loadings and correlated error terms.
4. Avoid confirmation bias.
5. Use an adequate estimation method.
6. Recognise the existence of equivalence models.
7. Justify causal inferences.
8. Use clear reporting that is not selective.

Image:  

​Michael Eid, Tanja Kutscher,  Stability of Happiness, 2014 Chapter 13 – Statistical Models for Analyzing Stability and Change in Happiness
​https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124114784000138

​References:
(1). Latent Variables in Psychology and the Social Sciences

(2) Structural equation modelling and its application to network analysis in functional brain imaging
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hbm.460020104

(3) Chapter 7: Assumptions in Structural Equation modelling
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-16551-007

(4) A cautionary note on testing latent variable models
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01715/full

“…. half of current published peer-reviewed clinical research papers … contain at least one statistical error… When just surgical related papers were analysed, 78% were found to contain statistical errors.”

Peer reviewed published research is the go to source for clinicians and researchers to advance their knowledge on the topic at hand. It also currently the most reliable way available to do this. The rate of change in standard care and exponential development and implementation of innovative treatments and styles of patient involvement makes keeping up with the latest research paramount. (1)

Unfortunately, almost half of current published peer-reviewed clinical research papers have been shown to contain at least one statistical error, likely resulting in incorrect research conclusions being drawn from the results. When just surgical related papers were analysed, 78% were found to contain statistical errors due to incorrect application of statistical methods. (1)

Compared to 20 years ago all forms of medical research require the application of increasingly complex methodology, acquire increasingly varied forms of data, and require increasingly sophisticated approaches to statistical analysis. Subsequently the meta-analyses required to synthesise these clinical studies are increasingly advanced. Analytical techniques that would have previously sufficed and are still widely taught are now no longer sufficient to address these changes. (1)

The number of peer reviewed clinical research publications has increased over the past 12 years. Parallel to this, the statistical analyses contained in these papers are increasingly complex, as is the sophistication with which they are applied. For example, t tests and descriptive statistics were the go to statistical methodology for many highly regarded articles published in the 1970’s and 80’s. To rely on those techniques today would be insufficient, both in terms of being scientifically satisfying and in, in all likelihood, in meeting the current peer-review standards. (1)

Despite this, some concerning research has noted that these basic parametric techniques are actually currently still being misunderstood and misapplied reasonably frequently in contemporary research. They are also being increasingly relied upon (in line with the increase in research output) when in fact more sophisticated and modern analytic techniques would be better equipped and more robust in answering given research questions. (1)

Another contributing factor to statistical errors is of course ethical in nature. An recent online survey consulting biostatisticians in America revealed that inappropriate requests to change or delete data to support a hypothesis were common, as was the desire to mould the interpretation of statistical results of to fit in with expectations and established hypotheses, rather than interpreting results impartially. Ignoring violations of statistical assumptions that would deem to chosen statistical test inappropriate, and not reporting missing data that would bias results were other non-ethical requests that were reported. (2)

The use of incorrect statistical methodology and tests leads to incorrect conclusions being widely published in peer reviewed journals. Due to the reliance of clinical practitioners and researchers on these conclusions, to inform clinical practice and research directions respectively, the end result is a stunting of knowledge and a proliferation of unhelpful practices which can harm patients. (1)

Often these errors are a result of clinicians performing statistical analyses themselves without first consulting a biostatistician to design the study, assess the data and perform any analyses in an appropriately nuanced manner. Another problem can arise when researchers rely on the statistical techniques of a previously published peer-reviewed paper on the same topic. It is often not immediately apparent whether a statistician has been consulted on this established paper. Thus it is not necessarily certain whether the established paper has taken the best approach to begin with. This typically does not stop it becoming a benchmark for future comparable studies or deliberate replications. Further to this it can very often be the case that the statistical methods used have since been improved upon and other more advanced or more robust methods are now available. It can also be the case that small differences in the study design or collected data between the established study and the present study mean that the techniques used in the established study are not the most optimal techniques to address the statistical needs of present study, even if the research question is the same or very similar.

Another common scenario which can lead to the implementation of non-ideal statistical practices is under-budgeting for biostatisticians on research grant applications. Often biostatisticians are on multiple grants, each with a fairly low amount of funding allocated to the statistical component due to tight or under budgeting. This limits the statistician’s ability to focus substantially on a specific area and make a more meaningful contribution in that domain. A lack of focus prevents them from becoming a expert at this particular niche and engage in innovation.This in turn can limit the quality of the science as well as the career development of the statistician.

In order to reform and improve the state and quality of clinical and other research today, institutions and individuals must assign more value to the role of statisticians in all stages of the research process. Two ways to do this are increased budgeting for and in turn increased collaboration with statistical professionals.

​
References:

(1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6106004/

​(2)