Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of misspecifying a growth mixture model (GMM) by assuming that Level-1 residual variances are constant across classes, when they do, in fact, vary in each subpopulation. Misspecification produced bias in the within-class growth trajectories and variance components, and estimates were substantially less precise than those obtained from a correctly specified GMM. Bias and precision became worse as the ratio of the largest to smallest Level-1 residual variances increased, class proportions became more disparate, and the number of class-specific residual variances in the population increased. Although the Level-1 residuals are typically of little substantive interest, these results suggest that researchers should carefully estimate and report these parameters in published GMM applications.
Enders et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: