Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 20, 2026

Modeling Alcohol Consumption in Rodents Using Two-Bottle Choice Home Cage Drinking and Microstructural Analysis
Published on: November 8, 2024
Correction to "Worse than measurement error: Consequences of inappropriate latent variable measurement models" by
Abstract:
Reports an error in "Worse than measurement error: Consequences of inappropriate latent variable measurement models" by Mijke Rhemtulla, Riet van Bork and Denny Borsboom (Psychological Methods, 2020[Feb], Vol 25[1], 30-45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000220; see record 2019-31247-001). In the article, an error in code produced incorrect results depicted in Figure 10, in the associated text, and in the parameter sweep results that were presented in the supplemental materials. The results shown in Figure 10 have been corrected in the online article. The code and supplemental materials have been updated (both the original and updated versions are available on the project OSF page located at https://osf.io/f8g4d). Corrections to the text are shown. The authors thank Leonhard Volz for identifying the error in the posted code. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2019-31247-001.) Previous research and methodological advice has focused on the importance of accounting for measurement error in psychological data. That perspective assumes that psychological variables conform to a common factor model. We explore what happens when data that are not generated from a common factor model are nonetheless modeled as reflecting a common factor. Through a series of hypothetical examples and an empirical reanalysis, we show that when a common factor model is misused, structural parameter estimates that indicate the relations among psychological constructs can be severely biased. Moreover, this bias can arise even when model fit is perfect. In some situations, composite models perform better than common factor models. These demonstrations point to a need for models to be justified on substantive, theoretical bases in addition to statistical ones. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
Related Concept Videos
Random and Systematic Errors
Random and Systematic Errors
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
