> On 30 Mar 2017, at 16:09 , Ludwig Kreuzpointner > <ludwig.kreuzpoint...@psychologie.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: > > To whom it may concern, > when I was calculating BIC with sem > e.g. as follows: > > cfa.mod <- cfa(reference.indicators=FALSE, covs=NULL) > F1: Sentences, Vocabulary, Sent.Completion, First.Letters, Four.Letter.Words > > cfa.sem <- sem(cfa.mod, S=Thurstone, N=355) > summary(cfa.sem) > > > the BIC value is wrong! > > For the example it results > > BIC = 104.5072 > > Correct with a formula I found in text books: > > BIC= χ2 + ln(N)[k(k + 1)/2 - df] > > BIC should be 192.588977895 > > 104.5072 I got, when set k=0 > > I think there must be a mistake when getting the numbers of parameters.
The generic definition of BIC is -2 log L + p log N, where p is the number of parameters. However, like the log-likelihood itself, it is only determined up to an additive constant, so it is not obvious that one number is more correct than the other. -- Peter Dalgaard, Professor, Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Phone: (+45)38153501 Office: A 4.23 Email: pd....@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
