跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要中的因子分析用于医疗调查的组织层面质量指标,未涉及宏观或金融因子,其他细分依据亦不足。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Alan M. Zaslavsky

结构性无应答下多层调查数据的域级协方差分析

研究问题
如何在医疗质量调查存在结构性无应答时,估计组织层面质量指标之间的协方差,并评估因子结构的不确定性?
方法与思路
作者先拟合考虑无应答的广义方差协方差函数,再对域均值建立截断多元正态模型,用 EM 与 MCMC 估计并开展因子分析。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,该方法直接分析域均值关系,并用后验抽样评估所选因子数量及条目分组,比较不同协方差先验下的结果。
阅读关注点
应核对无应答模式如何进入方差函数、域均值似然的依据,以及因子选择规则、协方差先验对分组结果的影响。
阅读边界
所据为 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;无应答假设与模型识别条件未说明,不能认定该方法消除了所有无应答偏差。

原文摘要

Health care quality surveys in the United States are administered to individual respondents (i.e., hospital patients, health plan members) to evaluate the performance of health care organizations (i.e., hospitals, health plans), which thus constitute estimation domains. For better understanding and more parsimonious reporting of dimensions of quality, we analyze relationships among quality measures at the domain level. Rather than specifying a full parametric model for the observed responses and the nonresponse patterns at the lower (patient) level, we first fit generalized variance–covariance functions that take into account nonresponse patterns in the survey responses, then specify a likelihood function for the domain mean responses using these generalized variance–covariance functions. This allows us to model directly the relationships among domain means for different items. Because the response scales are bounded, we assume that these means follow a truncated multivariate normal distribution. We calculate maximum likelihood (ML) estimates using the EM algorithm and sample under Bayesian models using Markov chain Monte Carlo. Finally, we perform factor analysis on the estimated or sampled between-domain covariance matrixes. Using posterior draws, we assess posterior distributions of the number of selected factors and the assignment of items to groups under conventional rules. We compare ML estimates of this factor structure with those from several Bayesian models with different prior distributions for the between-domain covariance. We present analyses of data from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey of Medicare Advantage health plans.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文