The Impact of Item Misspecification and Dichotomization on Class and Parameter Recovery in LCA of Count Data

Mixture analysis of count data has become increasingly popular among researchers of substance use, behavioral analysis, and program evaluation. However, this increase in popularity seems to have occurred along with adoption of some conventions in model specification based on arbitrary heuristics that may impact the validity of results. Findings from a systematic review of recent drug and alcohol publications suggested count variables are often dichotomized or misspecified as continuous normal indicators in mixture analysis. Prior research suggests that misspecifying skewed distributions of continuous indicators in mixture analysis introduces bias, though the consequences of this practice when applied to count indicators has not been studied. The present work describes results from a simulation study examining bias in mixture recovery when count indicators are dichotomized (median split; presence vs. absence), ordinalized, or the distribution is misspecified (continuous normal; incorrect count distribution). All distributional misspecifications and methods of categorizing resulted in greater bias in parameter estimates and recovery of class membership relative to specifying the true distribution, though dichotomization appeared to improve class enumeration accuracy relative to all other specifications. Overall, results demonstrate the importance of accurately modeling count indicators in mixture analysis, as misspecification and categorizing data can distort study outcomes.