Generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) is a technically well-established approach to component-based structural equation modeling that allows for specifying and examining the relationships between observed variables and components thereof. GSCA provides overall fit indexes for model evaluation, including the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). While these indexes have a solid standing in factor-based structural equation modeling, nothing is known about their performance in GSCA. Addressing this limitation, we present a simulation study’s results, which confirm that both GFI and SRMR indexes distinguish effectively between correct and misspecified models. Based on our findings, we propose rules-of-thumb cutoff criteria for each index in different sample sizes, which researchers could use to assess model fit in practice.

Generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) is a theoretically well-founded approach to component-based structural equation modeling (SEM). This approach utilizes the bootstrap method to estimate the confidence intervals of its parameter estimates without recourse to distributional assumptions, such as multivariate normality. It currently provides the bootstrap percentile confidence intervals only. Recently, the potential usefulness of the bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap (BCa) confidence intervals (CIs) over the percentile method has attracted attention for another component-based SEM approach—partial least squares path modeling. Thus, in this study, we implemented the BCa CI method into GSCA and conducted a rigorous simulation to evaluate the performance of three bootstrap CI methods, including percentile, BCa, and Student's t methods, in terms of coverage and balance. We found that the percentile method produced CIs closer to the desired level of coverage than the other methods, while the BCa method was less prone to imbalance than the other two methods. Study findings and implications are discussed, as well as limitations and directions for future research.

No abstract

Objective Enhanced technology in computer and internet has driven scale and quality of data to be improved in various areas including healthcare sectors. Machine Learning (ML) has played a pivotal role in efficiently analyzing those big data, but a general misunderstanding of ML algorithms still exists in applying them (e.g., ML techniques can settle a problem of small sample size, or deep learning is the ML algorithm). This paper reviewed the research of diagnosing mental illness using ML algorithm and suggests how ML techniques can be employed and worked in practice. Methods Researches about mental illness diagnostic using ML techniques were carefully reviewed. Five traditional ML algorithms-Support Vector Machines (SVM), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, and K-Nearest Neighborhood (KNN)-frequently used for mental health area researches were systematically organized and summarized. Results Based on literature review, it turned out that Support Vector Machines (SVM), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, and K-Nearest Neighborhood (KNN) were frequently employed in mental health area, but many researchers did not clarify the reason for using their ML algorithm though every ML algorithm has its own advantages. In addition, there were several studies to apply ML algorithms without fully understanding the data characteristics. Conclusion Researchers using ML algorithms should be aware of the properties of their ML algorithms and the limitation of the results they obtained under restricted data conditions. This paper provides useful information of the properties and limitation of each ML algorithm in the practice of mental health.

No abstract