Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Alternative common factor models for multivariate biometric analyses.

J J McArdle1, H H Goldsmith

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville 22903.

Behavior Genetics
|September 1, 1990
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Incidental Findings from 16,400 Brain MRI Examinations of Research Volunteers.

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology·2023
Same author

Leveraging latent profile analysis to synthesize childhood and adolescent risk factors for suicidal ideation.

PloS one·2022
Same author

Longitudinal Research at the Interface of Affective Neuroscience, Developmental Psychopathology, Health and Behavioral Genetics:Findings from the Wisconsin Twin Project - ERRATUM.

Twin research and human genetics : the official journal of the International Society for Twin Studies·2019
Same author

Longitudinal Research at the Interface of Affective Neuroscience, Developmental Psychopathology, Health and Behavioral Genetics: Findings from the Wisconsin Twin Project.

Twin research and human genetics : the official journal of the International Society for Twin Studies·2019
Same author

Correction to: Investigation of brain structure in the 1-month infant.

Brain structure & function·2018
Same author

Investigation of brain structure in the 1-month infant.

Brain structure & function·2018
Same journal

Direct and Indirect Genetic Effects on Child ADHD Traits in Early and Mid-Childhood: Trio Genome-Wide Complex Trait Analyses in a Large Norwegian Birth Registry Cohort.

Behavior genetics·2026
Same journal

Behavioral Disinhibition Model of Addiction: A Review and New Findings from the Minnesota Twin Family Study.

Behavior genetics·2026
Same journal

Tracing the Right Path: Determination of Large Pedigree Segmentation and Relatedness.

Behavior genetics·2026
Same journal

Genetic and Environmental Associations Between Processing Speed and Executive Functions Across Adolescence and Established Adulthood.

Behavior genetics·2026
Same journal

Heritability of Functional Literacy: Evidence from a Classical Twin Design.

Behavior genetics·2026
Same journal

Geneticists' Understandings of Genetic Causation.

Behavior genetics·2026
See all related articles

Structural equation models offer alternatives to traditional twin studies for analyzing genetic and environmental influences. This research details differences between biometric and psychometric factor approaches using twin data.

Area of Science:

  • Behavioral Genetics
  • Quantitative Psychology
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • Traditional biometric twin designs are foundational for disentangling genetic and environmental influences on traits.
  • Linear structural equation models (SEM) provide a flexible framework for analyzing complex data structures.
  • Previous work demonstrated SEM as a viable alternative to conventional twin study methodologies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To present structural equation modeling (SEM) as an alternative to traditional biometric twin designs.
  • To detail fundamental differences between biometric-factors and psychometric-factors approaches in twin data analysis.
  • To extend and compare multivariate biometric methodologies using factor modeling.

Main Methods:

  • Utilizing linear structural equation models and path analysis to define biometric group differences.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Re-expressing traditional common-factor models within the SEM framework.
  • Contrasting covariance structure (biometric-factors) and factor analysis (psychometric-factors) approaches.
  • Applying exploratory and confirmatory multiple-factor models to twin data.

    • Main Results:

    • Demonstrated fundamental differences in model specification and results between biometric and psychometric factor approaches.
    • Extended both multivariate biometric methodologies, highlighting their empirical utility.
    • Showcased the application of SEM to analyze multivariate primary mental abilities in twin datasets.

    Conclusions:

    • Structural equation modeling offers a powerful and flexible alternative to traditional biometric twin designs.
    • Both biometric-factors and psychometric-factors approaches, when extended with SEM, offer valuable insights.
    • The choice of multivariate methodology depends on specific research questions and data characteristics.