4.3 Review

Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS METHODS PRIMERS
卷 1, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s43586-021-00055-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [K23-MH113805]
  2. Rubicon fellowship of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [019.191SG.005]
  3. European Research Council [647209]
  4. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [952464]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [949059]
  6. NWO Veni [016-195-261]
  7. EU Horizon 2020 Marie Curie Global Fellowship [889682]
  8. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [889682] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)
  9. European Research Council (ERC) [949059] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces the application of network analysis in psychological data, discusses the current state of the technology and the challenges for future development, and highlights the importance of successful applications in different fields.
In recent years, network analysis has been applied to identify and analyse patterns of statistical association in multivariate psychological data. In these approaches, network nodes represent variables in a data set, and edges represent pairwise conditional associations between variables in the data, while conditioning on the remaining variables. This Primer provides an anatomy of these techniques, describes the current state of the art and discusses open problems. We identify relevant data structures in which network analysis may be applied: cross-sectional data, repeated measures and intensive longitudinal data. We then discuss the estimation of network structures in each of these cases, as well as assessment techniques to evaluate network robustness and replicability. Successful applications of the technique in different research areas are highlighted. Finally, we discuss limitations and challenges for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据