text:
Mplus Home
Last Day
Last 3 Days
Last Week
Tree View
Edit Profile
Complier Average Causal Efect (CACE) ...
Mplus Discussion
Latent Variable Mixture Modeling
Jichuan Wang
posted on Monday, January 21, 2002 - 6:58 pm
Two questions:
1). For only two treatment conditions (i.e., TX vs control): is it possible to have three levels of compliance (e.g., compliance, partial compliance, and non-compliance) so that the training variables could look like the following:
c1 c2 c3
1 1 1 (in control group)
1 0 0 (compliance)
0 1 0 (partial compliance)
0 0 1 (non-compliance)
Accordingly, the latent class variable would be specified with three classes in the mixture intervention model.
2). Is it possible to run a CACE model with three treatment conditions (e.g., tx1, tx2, and control) and two levels of compliance (i.e., compliance vs non-compliance)? It looks like we could include two TX dummy variables in the model, but how to define the training variables and interpret the latent class variable?
Thank you very much for your help!
Booil Jo
posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 8:27 pm
1) It is possible to arrange the training variables as you did to reflect three levels of compliance. However, this model is not identified, even though you impose the exclusion restriction on noncompliers. In this case, you have to build the identifiability relying on more structural assumptions than the exclusion restriction.
2)This is another underdeveloped area in CACE modeling. I will compare tx1 vs. control, and tx2 vs. control using regular 2-class CACE models. However, It is not clear how to interpret the results when you compare two active treatments using CACE estimation, as you already pointed out (unless double-blining is possible).
posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 9:59 am
I wondered if anyone reading knew if this was an appropriate problem for CACE modelling. We have a problem related to, but not exactly the same as, non-compliance - differential non-recruitment.
We carried out a cluster randomised study of a new form of therapy versus standard care. The clusters were clinics, and there were 13 clinics allocated to standard, and 13 allocated to the new form of care.
The problem that we encountered was that the clinics allocated to the new form of care - intervention - thought this was very exciting, and recruited a large number of patients (~800), whereas the usual care - control - didn't try so hard, and recruited only ~400.
The control group differs - probably in initial severity, and maybe on other characteristics. We have a wide range
Is this an example of somewhere we could use a CACE model? We have two classes in the intervention arm, and one class in the control arm. It's sort of related to ITT issues, but only sort of.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:25 pm
As I understand it, once you have lost your randomization, the method would no longer apply.
posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 12:42 pm
Dear Bengt and Linda
I have some questions regarding CACE models in MPlus 3.11. First, I wonder whether my data are suited to this model. I have a study where respondents to a survey are randomly allocated to either treatment or control. In the treatment condition they are shown a film about genomic science, the control receive no information. I want to look at the effect of watching the film on subsequent attitude questions. However, approximately 20% of the treatment group report not having understood the film. I would like to treat this group as non-compliers and estimate the complier-average causal effect of viewing the film. Would this seem appropriate to you?
Second, I am not sure how to interpret the MPlus output when fitting the CACE model in example 7.24. Can you point me somewhere that I might be able to find some pointers on what I should be looking for? In particular, which parameter denotes the causal effect? Is it the regression of Y on x2 in latent class 2? I have sent my output separately to MPlus Product support. Thank you,
posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 6:04 pm
Yes on the question in the first paragraph.
Example 7.24 uses the x2 variable to represent the treatment-control dummy in line with ex 7.23. So, yes, the regression coefficients for y on x2 is the causal effect.
posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 12:25 pm
Dear Bengt
thanks for your reply. I have a few further questions about this:
1. the output suggests to me that latent class 2 in my analysis are the non-compliers (this is because of the relative size of the classes. However, the regression of Y on X2 is fixed to zero in this class. Should class 1 be the non-compliers in the setup for this model?
2. what is the role of the x1 variable? Should I be including variables here that are predictive of complier/non-complier status? Can I include more than one variable for X1?
3. How do I deal with differential nonresponse in the CACE model? Can I simply specify a weight variable in the usual way?
thanks again,
posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 1:17 pm
1. There should be no doubt from the data about which class is the non-complier class - it is the class with no compliance for the treatment group (so an observable matter). The standard CACE model assumes no treatment effect for the non-compliance class since they do not receive treatment (see, however, modifications made in Booil Jo papers on our web site).
2. x1 is an example of a variable that strengthens the analysis much like covariates with ancova in randomized studies. You can have many such variables pointing to either the latent class variable or the outcome or both. See the Little & Yau article in Psych Methods on our web site.
3. By differential nonresponse, do you mean different across the 2 classes? If so, this is a topic studied by Frangakis and Rubin within the area of non-ignorable missingness - it can be handled by Mplus using the latent classes to predict missingness. But maybe I am misunderstanding your question.
Michael Beets
posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 11:34 pm
We have a multiyear evaluation trial of a school-based program using
student reports of outcomes, students nested within classrooms. In our
initial CACE analysis we dichotomized the implementation measure to
create complier and non-complier categories. Results were good, but our
child-report covariates didn't predict compliance well. We have
teacher-report covariates that might predict compliance better.
Can Mplus do a CACE model that includes teacher-report covariates to
predict compliance? Because students are nested within classroom, all
students who had the same teacher have the same values for the
teacher-report covariates. Is a multilevel CACE analysis needed here to
correctly use the teacher-report covariates?
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 11:59 pm
Is compliance a between level (classroom) variable with students being the within level? If so, the CACE latent class variable is a between variable. This feature is not in the current Mplus Version 4.1, but will be in the next version 4.2 which is due out in a couple of weeks. If compliance varies across students within classrooms, this is related to work by Booil Jo and you may want to contact her about it.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 4:33 pm
If you send me an email, I have a paper and some communication with Booil Jo to share with you on this.
Michael Beets
posted on Wednesday, November 08, 2006 - 1:29 am
I am currently evaluating a multiyear trial of an elementary school primary prevention program. In the program, we have varying levels of exposure to the program (an unintended side effect of varying implementation of teachers).
I am interested in the CACE approach to model the effects of the program. Additionally, I�ve run propensity score analyses, with favorable results.
My question centers on locating a reference that may provide a substantive discussion on the key similarities and differences of CACE and propensity score methods.
Would you be able to point me a direction?
Thank you.
Elizabeth Stuart
posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 6:05 pm
One of the main differences between the CACE and propensity score methods are the underlying assumptions, so you will want to think about which is more reasonable for your setting.
In particular, the CACE models use the fact that the original treatment assignment was randomized (I'm not sure if it was in your example), and then make exclusion restrictions and the monotonicity assumption to estimate impacts. So they rely on having some "instrument" (the thing that was randomized) that affects the exposure level that someone gets.
Propensity score methods don't assume anything was randomized, but instead rely on an assumption of unconfounded treatment assignment: they assume that there are no hidden biases between the exposed and unexposed groups. In your case, this would imply that there are no unobsrved differences between the high exposure and low exposure groups--that all differences are captured by your observed covariates. So they assume that only observed variables affect the exposure level that someone gets.
I hope this helps. In another post I will list some references that you could look at.
Liz Stuart
Elizabeth Stuart
posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 6:07 pm
This is a followup to my previous post, with references for propensity score and CACE assumptions and comparisons.
For the CACE assumptions I like the original Angrist, Imbens, and Rubin paper:
Angrist, J.D., Imbens, G.W., and Rubin, D.B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444-455.
For propensity score analyses I like this paper by Rubin:
Rubin, D.B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 169-188.
And there are two references I know of that compare instrumental variables (CACE) models and propensity score models:
Posner, M.A., Ash, A.S., Freund, K.M., Moskowitz, M.A., and Shwartz, M. (2001). "Comparing standard regression, propensity score matching, and instrumental variables methods for determining the influence of mammography on stage of diagnosis." Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 279-290.
Landrum, M.B. and Ayanian, J.Z. (2001). "Causal effect of amulatory specialty care on mortality following myocardial infarction: A comparison of propensity score and instrumental variable analyses." Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 221-245.
Liz Stuart
Michael Beets
posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 7:32 pm
I really appreciate your assistance on this topic. I will delve into these references and if any new question should arise I will be sure to ask.
Have a beautiful day.
Scott Grey
posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 4:37 pm
I'm not sure what this error output means. Can you help?
alc30_11 ON alc30_7;
class#1 ON latino black am_ind asian oth_race male family age alc30_7
risk2 risk3 risk4;
age WITH latino black am_ind asian oth_race male family alc30_7;
alc30_11 ON treatms;
alc30_11 ON
FILE IS results;
Thuy Nguyen
posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 5:17 pm
Please send your input, output and data to
. Not enough information is available here to determine the cause of the error message.
Charles B. Fleming
posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 4:45 pm
I have data from an experimental study in which I have both "noncompliers" in the experimental condition and "always-takes" in the control condition. I have run some CACE models using Booil's syntax for the two class CACE model (i.e., compliers and noncompliers) but extending the logic to a three class model (i.e., compliers, noncompliers, and always-takers). The results seem to make sense and match up reasonably closely with the estimate of the treatment effect I get with an instrumental variable approach or running an ANCOVA model that controls for covariates related to compliance. The standard errors for the treatment effect are somewhat larger using the CACE model compared to the ANCOVA model, which seems right. (I have not figured out how to get the standard errors or include covariates using the instrumental variable approach).
I am wondering whether I am in uncharted waters with the three class CACE model. I looked through Booil's publications and have not found a similar example.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 8:02 pm
Following is a response from Booil Jo:
It is possible to do 3-class CACE modeling in Mplus. The model will be identified by imposing the exclusion restriction both on never-takers and always-takers. Monotonicity is also necessary. Under this condition, Mplus should provide estimates close to those from the IV approach. However, since we are dealing with a parametric model, substantial deviation from normality may lead to erroneous solutions. Including covariates is not only possible, but also prevent this event from happening. If one or both of the exclusion restrictions are relaxed, identification of the model will depend more on covariate information and normality, and therefore more caution is needed. Cross-validating the results by using both parametric and semi or non-parametric approaches might be a good idea in this case. I have not tried many examples of 3-class CACE modeling, and have not seen many published examples using parametric approaches (and none using Mplus).
However, there are many published examples of multi-class CACE modeling using the Bayesian approach.
posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 9:04 pm
I have a few questions regarding a CACE model I am attempting to run.
1) What is the difference between these two error messages?
Data set contains cases with missing on all variables. These cases were not included in the analysis. Number of cases with missing on all variables: 2
Data set contains cases with missing on x-variables.These cases were not included in the analysis. Number of cases with missing on x-variables: 84
2)How can I maximize the variables used without effecting the Entropy?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 9:24 pm
The first message is about missing on all analysis variables. The second message is about observations with missing on one or more observed exogenous variables.
I don't understand your second question.
posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 10:05 pm
Thanks for the answer and I apologize for being vague in my second question. Regarding the number of cases with missing observations on the exogenous variables, I have found on other posts using other types of analyses that mentioning the variances works to include cases with missing data on the covariates. Is this also true for CACE models (perhaps by saying x2; again in the %overall% model)? If so, will this change the entropy of the model (the model continues to run well without these cases)? I hope this is more clear, and thank you in advance.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 2:35 pm
If you change the sample by bringing in the observations with missing on x's, you change the sample and the entropy will most likely change also.
posted on Monday, January 04, 2010 - 8:04 pm
How large of a sample size is needed to conduct a CACE model?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Monday, January 04, 2010 - 11:24 pm
Following is an answer from Booil Jo:
Assuming that parametric estimation methods (e.g., 2-class mixture in Mplus) are used, around 100 or more subjects in each compliance class will result in good CACE estimates and standard errors. Around 50 subjects in each compliance class will still yield reasonably good estimates. However, if parametric assumptions and/or model identifying assumptions (e.g., exclusion restriction) are not met, the quality of estimates will deteriorate. Covariates may play important roles here. By including good covariates (i.e., predictors of compliance type) in the estimation model, one may obtain reasonably good CACE estimates with smaller samples. These covariates also tend to reduce sensitivity of CACE estimates to deviations from underlying model assumptions.
Sam Vuchinich
posted on Monday, May 03, 2010 - 8:50 pm
I have data from a randomized trial and am interested in the noncompliance Example 7.24 in the Mplus manual. In particular, can this analysis be done with missing data on the outcome variable? I do have baseline covariates that predict missingness, the outcome variable and compliance, and am planning to use these to identify the CACE. I have read the recent Jo, Ginexi & Ialongo (in press) paper posted at your web site which nicely describes missing outcomes and CACE in Mplus. But they identify the CACE by imposing restrictions on the relationship between outcome missingness and noncompliance. That would be useful as sensitivity analyses, but for the primary analysis I want to take advantage of the informative covariates, which were carefully chosen. Is it possible to use example Mplus 7.24 with multiple imputation? If so, which Mplus multiple imputation method would be best?
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2010 - 4:21 pm
It is an interesting question what is best here. You could do imputation where you specify that tx is binary. But note that regular imputation does not acknowledge that you have a mixture of compliers and non-compliers. So the imputations would seem biased to some degree. Regular ML mixture modeling would seem more straightforward, with later follow-up using the latent ignorability NMAR approach. Note that ML under MAR estimates [y | x] from those with complete data on y. The subjects with data on only x would contribute only to the marginal [y]. You have the parameters you want already in [y|x]. I am saying that because there doesn't seem to be a reason to bring the x into the model in ML in this case. If your covariates that predict missingness are not part of your model, you could take the missing data correlates approach of UG ex 11.1.
Sam Vuchinich
posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2010 - 5:21 pm
Thank you for the suggestion to use the AUXILIARY command. I am interested in applying the GMM described in the 2003 Jo & Muthen chapter in the Reise & Duan book, and see that the AUXILIARY command provides a convenient way to deal with missing outcomes, although covariates that predict compliance and the outcome are still needed in the model proper to identify it. Is it possible to use the AUXILIARY command in a three-level model in Mplus, as in a longitudinal cluster-randomized trial (e.g., level 1 = time points, level 2 = person, level 3 = cluster)?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 2:46 pm
The AUXILIARY (m)option is not available for multilevel modeling.
Sam Vuchinich
posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 8:39 pm
Is there any chance that the AUXILIARY option for multilevel modeling will be included in future versions of Mplus?
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 2:13 pm
We will put it on our list for future developments. In the meanwhile note that this type of modeling can be set up by the user. The principle for the single-level approach is described in the web movie Missing Data Correlates using ML which you find at
That principle can be generalized to twolevel models.
Sam Vuchinich
posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 10:05 pm
Thanks very much for this suggestion, I will check it out.
Sam Vuchinich
posted on Monday, May 10, 2010 - 11:50 pm
The "Missing Data Correlates using ML" video was clear. I see how to add in the WITH statements rather than using the AUXILIARY command in that kind of model. I am interested in using this method in the multilevel growth mixture model format of UG Example 10.9. That would represent a couple of extensions from the video example. First, consider the case of UG Example 10.9 with some missing data in the outcomes, y1-y4. If there were three Time-1 covariates that were not measures of y (as they are in the video), that are associated with missingness in y1-y4, could they be used in the same manner as the z1-z5 in the video as auxiliary variables? That is, would this be done by adding to the %WITHIN% section of the Example 10.9 model the 3 correlations among the 3 auxiliary variables, and the 12 correlations between the 3 auxiliaries and the 4 outcome observations? If this is incorrect could give me a hint on how specify the auxiliary effects in MODEL = TWOLEVEL MIXTURE? Second, would the same approach extend to data that was missing from whole clusters of individuals (such as schools) that were missing from some waves of the study? That is, assuming there are 3 cluster-level covariates that are associated with whether whole clusters (data on students in a school) are missing from some waves of data. I can see how this might be done in the %BETWEEN% section of Example 10.9, analogous to the %Within% section as described above.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - 3:57 pm
These are good questions and they are research questions that have to be studied, including via simulations. I'm afraid I don't have the specific answers since I haven't done this myself yet.
Sam Vuchinich
posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 12:22 am
Though the AUXILIARY approach to dealing with missingness in the outcomes (y1-y4) of multilevel Example 10.9 is premature, would it not still be possible to provide evidence for MAR if there were within-level covariates that were predictive of the outcome, predictive of missingness, and of some substantive interest in the model. Such covariates could influence the intercept or slope. Substantive interest could come from a need to adjust model estimates for something like gender. Granted, I am talking about very informative covariates. But if you found a couple good ones, with moderately strong associations, and no interactions, wouldn't that address missingness in multilevel models such as Example 10.9?
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 12:15 am
If you have covariates that are predictive of the outcome and missingness as well, I would not hesitate to include them in the model and thereby make MAR more plausible. The missing correlates situation is different because the correlates don't have a role in the model as predictors of the outcome, only missingness. Hence, they shouldn't be included as covariates because the influence of the substantive covariates becomes distorted.
I would first ignore the multilevel angle and see if missing data correlates have an effect or not.
posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 11:25 pm
In attempting to run a CACE model I receive the following warning:
However, on the website i noticed that the same error is shown in an GMM example:
Can this warning be ignored? If not, how should one proceed in ameliorating the error?
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 1:46 am
No, this message should not be ignored. For the variable w9xr, you should look for a negative residual variance or a correlation greater than one. If you can't see the problem, please send your full output and license number to
posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 5:54 pm
Dear professors,
I have two questions about CACE:
1. If y (outcome variable) is a categorical variable, can I do a CACE model with example 7.23 by only including a command of "categorical=y"? What else do I need to add to the input?
2. Is it possible to examine the interaction between treatment (not complier) and a covariate in the CACE model? If so, is it correct to simply generate an interaction term between treatment and the covariate, and include it as another covariate in the model?
Thanks in advance!
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 6:17 pm
1. Yes. The other difference is that instead of a mean and variance for the dependent variable, you would have a threshold.
2. Yes.
posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 - 5:10 pm
For CACE model, is there any paper or example of input file that combines latent growth modeling and CACE?
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 - 6:47 pm
Yes, look under Papers, Non-compliance and you will find a Jo-Muthen paper related to that.
Marie-Helene Veronneau
posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 7:41 pm
I have a question on how to interpret part of the output of a CACE model.
Is the following section giving me the means of my predictors within class 1 (i.e., non-engagers in my model)?
. Model Estimated Means
And is the following section giving me the means of my predictors within class 2 (i.e., engagers in my model)?
. Model Estimated Means
I would assume that these are the values I would get if I saved the estimated engager status for each participant and requested means for each group separately, but the subtitle saying "RESIDUAL OUTPUT" is confusing to me.
Thank you for your help.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 12:11 am
Yes, those are the model-estimated means you want.
sunyoung yoon
posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 5:55 pm
Hi I'm working on a cluster principal stratification model. I wonder if I created group dummies properly or not according to the error message. Treatment was assigned in school level, and level of compliance is school level as well. Outcome level is student level.
Since compliance variable in control group was not observed, I coded "0" in both c1 and c2. And treatment group has compliance (1) and non-compliance (0) in c1 and c2 respectively.
c1 c2
0 0 control (assumed to be zero treatment effect)
1 0 treatment (compliance)
0 1 treatment (non-compliance)
But then, I got an error message like the below. I greatly appreciate your help.
There is at least one observation in the data set where all training variables
are zero. Please check your data and format statement.
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 6:07 pm
See the Topic 5 course handout starting at slide 44. Instead of 0 0 you should have 1 1. This means they can be in either class.
sunyoung yoon
posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 8:56 pm
Thank you so much! I just wonder if I'm doing it correctly still for dealing with cluster design. Could you look at the below syntax please?
CLUSTER = school;
BETWEEN = treat; CLASSES = c(2);
TRAINING = c1-c2;ANALYSIS: TYPE IS TWOLEVEL random MIXTURE;
score ;
score ;
score on treat;
score on treat @0;
score on treat;
OUTPUT: tech1 tech2;
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Thursday, January 26, 2012 - 2:36 am
You should ask yourself if
- the treatment is on the cluster level (the answer seems to be yes)
- the latent compliance classes are on the person or cluster level (the way you have done it, the compliance is on the person level)
You also want the mean of "score" to vary across the 2 compliance classes.
Then you check if your training data agrees with class 1 being the non-compliers.
sunyoung yoon
posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - 7:27 am
I have two questions. Treatment and complier occur in school level, outcome (score) is in student level. But latent class size looks like complier variables were created in student level in the output. Also, I have an error message like below. Do you see any problems in the syntax so I can fix or is there any example of multi level CACE model? I appreciate your help so much.
NAMES ARE school treat score c1 c2;
USEVARIABLES ARE treat score school c1 c2;
CLUSTER = school;
BETWEEN = treat;
CLASSES = c(2);
TRAINING = c1-c2;
TYPE IS TWOLEVEL random MIXTURE;
score on treat;
scoreon treat ;
OUTPUT: tech1 tech2;
Error message: THE STANDARD ERRORS OF THE MODEL PARAMETER ESTIMATES MAY NOT BE
Latent Classes
1 571 0.21354
2 2103 0.78646
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - 2:56 pm
If you want the classes to be between classes, add BETWEEN=c; to the VARIABLE command. You need to fix score on treat to zero in the non-complier class. See Example 7.23.
sunyoung yoon
posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 5:07 am
Thank you so much. I added "BETWEEN=c;" But still I had students latent classes numbers. My compliance occurs in the school level meaning that latent classes size should be presented the number of school?
And since my "non-complier class" is low quality of dosage, it's not the zero-treatment effect. In this case, still I have to fix to zero? If I run after fixing to zero, then coefficient of class 1 is 0 too.
NAMES ARE id school treat score c1 c2;
USEVARIABLES ARE treat score school
c1 c2;
CLUSTER = school;
BETWEEN = treat c;
CLASSES = c(2);
TRAINING = c1-c2;
TYPE IS TWOLEVEL random MIXTURE;
score on treat;
score on treat;
OUTPUT: tech1 tech2;
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 9:44 pm
No, you don't have to fix it at zero.
Check that your training data are between-level variables, that is, that all members of a cluster have the same value. If you continue to have problems, send your files and license number to
QianLi Xue
posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 12:47 pm
The User's Guide gives out two ways to implement the CACE model (i.e., Ex7.23 and Ex7.24). I noticed that the two approaches treat missing outcome variable (i.e., Y in the examples) differently. Ex7.23 will delete "cases with missing on all variables except x-variables." So it will delete all cases with Y missing. However in Ex7.24, only cases with both Y and u missing will be deleted, which means only cases in the control (not treatment) group with missing Y will be deleted. If this is correct. Which model do you recommend to use when there is missing data in Y? Thanks in advance for your help!
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 2:04 pm
What you say does not seem correct. Can you please send the two outputs and your license number to
so I can see what you mean.
Elina Dale
posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 2:23 am
Dear Dr. Muthen,
I am trying to estimate CACE as I have RCT with non-compliance (55% of those in treatment group did not get it). My outcome variable is a cont latent variable measured through cat factor indicators. My treatment variable is trx (1/0) and I have compliance indicator p4p (1/0), which shows whether ind i actually received the trx. I ran my model and I got the following warning message:
Final stage loglikelihood values at local maxima, seeds, and initial stage start numbers:
-12933.575 533738 11
-12933.575 407168 44
Unperturbed starting value run did not converge.
2 perturbed starting value run(s) did not converge.
I reran then with STARTS = 100 ; which is twice the number of starts before where I had 50. However, I got the same warning message, i.e. RERUN WITH AT LEAST TWICE THE RANDOM STARTS TO CHECK THAT THE BEST LOGLIKELIHOOD IS STILL OBTAINED AND REPLICATED.
I am not sure what perturbed and unperturbed staring values and what I should do as the next step to get the best loglikelihood and replicate it.
Thank you!
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 5:52 pm
We give the message to rerun every time you run. We have no way of knowing if this is your first or second run. If you have doubled the original starts and replicated the best loglikelihood several times, you should be fine. Unperturbed starting values are the default starting values which are used for the perturbed starting values.
Elina Dale
posted on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 1:38 am
Dear Dr. Muthen,
Thank you for all your help! It seems my model ran now and I got the CACE estimates that seem to make sense.
I am struggling now presenting and interpreting results, specifically assigning units. My outcome is a continuous latent variable measured through a set of observed indicators on a Likert scale. I have an assigned treatment variable (TRX=0/1) and I estimated CACE.
My F1 on TRX is -2.673. This is my CACE estimate. What are the units of measurement here?
For each of my factors 1st loading is fixed to 1. Will my results be easier to interpret if I fixed factor variances to 1?
I want to present it to policy-makers and would like to find a good way of interpreting the results. Also, if you have good publications you could refer me to that is similar to my case, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you!!!
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 2:56 pm
I would interpret the standardized STD coefficient. Then the metric of f1 is mean zero and variance one.
Elina Dale
posted on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 2:24 am
Dear Dr. Muthen,
I tried to get the STD coeff but it seems that to get them one has to specify ALGORITHM=INTEGRATION. With default setting, I got a message that there were 50625 integ points & I had to reduce their number or use MC Integration. So, I used MC with the following commands:
The Model took a few hours to run but eventually it terminated normally and I got the usual output without any warning messages. BUT, the estimates that I got using these specifications differ significantly from the estimates that I got previously, before I specified MC Integration, using these commands:
!3rd RERUN WITH MORE STARTS TO MAKE SURE
My estimates in all 3 runs w/out integration were all the same and my loglikelihood was replicated. So, I trusted those estimates. Now it seems with MC I get different ones. Which one of the two should I trust?
I've read on the Board that default numerical integ algorithm is better / more stable than MC. I couldn't do default b/c I had 4 dimensions & high number of integ points. But I still need to obtain STD results as per your earlier suggestion. Thank you!
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Sunday, May 12, 2013 - 4:27 pm
Send the output without STD and the output with STD and your license number to
Elina Dale
posted on Thursday, August 15, 2013 - 7:44 am
Dear Dr. Muthen,
I am trying to estimate CACE as I have RCT with non-compliance. Here is my specification of the original model A:
f1 BY item1 item2 item3
f2 BY item4 item5 item6
f3 BY item7 item8 item9
f4 BY item10 item11 item12
f1 ON trx ;
f2 ON trx ;
f3 ON trx ;
f4 ON trx ;
c ON X1 X2 X3 ;
f1 ON trx;
f2 ON.... etc
I ran my model A 3 times and my best likelihood was replicated each time. All the factor loadings and beta coefficients stayed the same.
Following this, I've added 3 more predictors, in addition to trx, and ran model B. I didn't alter the measurement part, i.e. factor indicators stayed the same. All other parts of how I specified the model also stayed unaltered.
The part that changed in Model B input:
f1 ON trx type1 type2 type3;
f2 ON trx type1 type2 type3;
f3 ON trx type1 type2 type3;
f4 ON trx type1 type2 type3;
Model B results show that Factor Loadings have changed(!) as well as beta coefficient of trx. I expected the latter, but I thought factor loadings should not have been altered. I rerun the model with more starts & iterations but got same results.
Should factor loadings remain unaltered between these two models?
If not, what can I do to find the reason for this error? Many thanks!
Linda K. Muthen
posted on Thursday, August 15, 2013 - 2:43 pm
The factor loadings can change. There may be a need for direct effects between the type and item variables due to measurement non-invariance.
Elina Dale
posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 12:03 am
Dear Dr. Muthen,
I am writing to you to just confirm again that CACE estimation method can be used with observed treatment and latent outcome variable b/c the articles on CACE that I found all seem to use observed outcomes (such as PIRC Study).
My Y or rather Y's are 4 factors measured through 20 items. My treatment is financial incentives, but I have high % of noncompliers, so am using CACE.
If I can use MPlus to estimate CACE with a latent outcome, is the specification below correct?
f1 BY item1 item2 item3
f2 BY item4 item5 item6
f3 BY item7 item8 item9
f4 BY item10 item11 item12
f1 ON trx ;
f2 ON trx ;
f3 ON trx ;
f4 ON trx ;
c ON X1 X2 X3 ;
f1 ON trx;
f2 ON.... etc
Thank you!
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 2:58 pm
Yes, this is doable and your setup is fine. But you should be aware that there are several possibilities for how many measurement parameters for the DVs that should be invariant across the two classes (factor loadings, indicator intercepts, residual variances), and you could study the sensitivity of the results to that.
Elina Dale
posted on Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 2:51 am
Yes, thank you, Dr. Muthen! I fixed the factor loadings & indicator intercepts to equal across two classes. I thought it would be reasonable to assume that, at least as a starting point.
1. I am wondering if there is good paper (like Booil Jo, 2002 on CACE) on how to check model assumptions etc with a CACE model where mediating variable is a LATENT variable consisting of 4 correlated factors.
X--> M --> Y where M is a latent variable that consists of 4 factors.
2. I am getting very strange estimates. For example, in my CACE model with just X & M where M was my outcome, I consistently got negative coefficients for trx.
Now that I added Y and my M is acting as a mediating variable, coefficients of X on M are positive on 2 of the factors.
The positive coefficients go also against exploratory data analysis results. I am wondering if the results are trustworthy.
I have 805 subjects, I have a trx variable, a mediating variable (4 factors, 20 items), and an observed continuous outcome.
I wonder if the sample is too small for such a complicated model or if there is something else I am doing wrong. Thank you!!!
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 2:13 pm
1. Not that I know. You may want to contact Booil Jo at Stanford.
2.I would break down the modeling into small parts to understand what is happening. For instance, first do X-->M without bringing in CACE. And look at each M factor separately (first making sure that the M factor analysis model fits well).
The sample size should be sufficient.
Elina Dale
posted on Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 4:47 pm
Thank you, Dr. Muthen! I did do (2). I first fit a CFA and checked a model fit. Then I fit a model with just my treatment and my mediator as a my outcome (X-->M) without CACE. Then, I fit CACE for X-->M.
Then, since X and my final Y are observed variables, I fit regular regression to check X and Y association.
Now, I am trying to fit the whole model X-->M-->Y using CACE.
In this "big" model coefficients of X on M are getting reversed (what was neg before becoming positive, which doesn't make sense). Plus, I am getting a message that the model may not be identified. There is something wrong but unlike regular regressions, I do not know of diagnostic tools that we could use after fitting the model to check our assumptions etc.
Could you please, help? Thank you!
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 10:38 pm
Send the output to Support, including TECH1, TECH4, and TECH8.
Elina Dale
posted on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 1:20 am
Thank you!!! I am rerunning it now since I didn't specify TECH4 output. Will send it as soon as it finishes. Thank you!
Elina Dale
posted on Monday, January 27, 2014 - 5:15 am
Dear Dr. Muthen,
I was listening to your presentation on categorical factor indicators. There you say that when we use MLR as an estimator, MPlus uses logistic regression, so the coefficients are interpreted as OR.
To estimate CACE, MPlus uses mixture modeling with MLR estimator. If everything is set up as in Ex 7.24, except the outcome is a latent variable measured on ordinal scale, do coefficients need to be exponentiated?
In May 2013, I wrote that my outcome was a continuous latent variable measured through a set of observed indicators on a Likert/Ordinal scale. I would like to just confirm again that the coefficient for the treatment variable that I get in the output does not need to be exponentiated and I haven't misunderstood your response in May.
Thank you!
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Monday, January 27, 2014 - 3:36 pm
No exponentiation needed because your DV is a (latent) continuous variable.
Elina Dale
posted on Monday, January 27, 2014 - 5:15 pm
Thank you! This is very helpful!
But does the point remain that we are fitting logistic regression with MLR estimator in mixture analysis?
I know we have logistic regression for predicting compliance status and MPlus even gives OR at the end.
But I wonder the part of the model where we predict outcome based on compliance. Since it uses MLR and factor indicators are categorical, is it a linear or logistic regression?
I promise this is my last question. Thank you!
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Monday, January 27, 2014 - 8:59 pm
Just go with what the DV is. The compliance status is binary. The factor is continuous - it doesn't matter that the factor indicators are categorical since they are DVs only for the factor predicting the indicators, not in the prediction of the factor.
Elina Dale
posted on Monday, January 27, 2014 - 9:20 pm
Thank you! This makes sense now. Greatly appreciate it!
Huili Liu
posted on Monday, May 12, 2014 - 11:41 pm
Dear Dr.Muthen,
Thank you very much for reading this email.
I am a PhD student, and I am very interested in the estimation of intervention effects with noncompliance. I read your chapter with Dr. Jo, Modeling of Intervention Effects with Noncompliance: A Latent Variable Approach for Randomized Trials.I really enjoyed it!
But I have a question about the Mplus code provided. The outcome was regressed on the assignment variable Z and the compliance status C. However, the estimation seemed not include the variable, D, that specified whether subjects had taken or not taken the treatment given they have been assigned to certain treatment level. If D is not included in the model, does the estimation process loose some information? I tried to run the model with some data I simulated. I can estimated the right effect for compliers with the traditional 2SLS method, but the result estimated with the EM algorithm was less accurate.
The following is the code:
Variable: names are Y Z;
usev are Y Z;
Analysis: type=mixture;
Y on Z;
! For compliers
Y on Z;
! For always takers
Y on
! For never takers
Y on
Thank you very much.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - 11:41 am
See the Mplus User's Guide which shows two ways to do CACE modeling.
Huili Liu
posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - 4:00 pm
Dear Dr. Muthen,
Thank you very much for your quick response!
However, I still have a question about the problem after reading your examples in the Mplus User's Guide. In your chapter with Jo (2001), Modeling of Intervention Effects with Noncompliance: A Latent Variable Approach for Randomized Trials, you specified that the non-compliers are just the never-takers, not including the defiers and the always-takers.
But in the User Guide, I did not see the clarification for the non-compliers. My understanding is that the examples also assume that there are no always-takers and defiers. Is it right?
If it assumes there are no always-takers and defiers, is there a way to include the estimation of always-takers? Or do you suggest some paper for reading.
I understand that for most research settings always-takers are either not able to have access to the treatment or not able to be recorded whether they have taken the treatment, as most researchers will term it as the "observed compliance statuses". But if the research has access to the record some always-takers, how can Mplus handle this problem?
Thank you so much for your help.
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Thursday, May 15, 2014 - 4:46 pm
3-class CACE adding always takers can be done in Mplus. It can work well with covariates but not too well without covariates. This is the experience of Booil Jo who will share her Mplus inputs here.
Fernando H Andrade
posted on Friday, October 24, 2014 - 4:40 pm
Dear Dr. Muth�n. Using five dataset from a multiple imputation; I am trying to fit an multigroup unconditional model (as defined in HLM). My grouping variable is gender. I am not sure if my mplus coding is correct. Additionally i am getting an error:
Errors for replication with data file Stutomplus1.dat:
my coding is
KNOWNCLASS = g (gender= 0 gender=1);
USEVARIABLES ARE zpvmath;
weight = w_fstuwt ;
wtscale = cluster ;
bweight = t_fstuwt ;
bwtscale = sample ;
CLUSTER = schoolid ;
Type = twolevel mixture;
zpvmath (p1);
zpvmath (p2);
zpvmath (p3);
zpvmath (p4);
Fernando H Andrade
posted on Friday, October 24, 2014 - 4:53 pm
Never mind my post before, i found my mistake in the coding. it is working now.
thank you
posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - 3:19 pm
Dear Drs. Muthen,
I think it is possible to include a mediator in the CACE model, but do you have any related paper?
Thank you!
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - 8:37 pm
I can't think of one off-hand. You may want to contact Booil Jo at Stanford's Psychiatry Dept.
David L. DuBois
posted on Monday, January 12, 2015 - 9:38 pm
Dear Drs. Muthen,
Is there an example available for implementing CACE mixture modeling with a zero effect class as described in Sobel and Muthen (2013) article on this topic in Biometrics?
Thank you!
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Monday, January 12, 2015 - 11:31 pm
Here is one key setup:
TITLE: mix12
Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE) estimation
in a randomized trial.
Data from the JOBS II intervention trial, courtesy of
Richard Price and Amiram Vinokur, University of Michigan.
Little, R.J. & Yau, L.H.Y. (1998). Statistical techniques
for analyzing data from prevention trials:
Treatment of no-shows using Rubin's causal model.
Psychological Methods, 3, 147-159.
DATA: FILE = jobs with u.dat;
VARIABLE: NAMES ARE depress risk Tx depbase age motivate educ
assert single econ nonwhite u;
categorical = tx u; !u=1 complier, u=0 non-complier
missing = all(999);
classes = cg(2) c(3);
starts = 100 20;
processors = 4 (starts);
depress ON risk depbase;
c ON age educ motivate econ assert single nonwhite;
%cg#1.c#1% !tx group (tx=1)
]; ! P(tx=1)=1
! c#1 is tx group type A - never-takers (no effect on M or Y)
]; ! P(u = 1)=0
[depress] (1);
depress (10);
! c#2 is tx group type B - compliers, but no effect on Y
]; ! P(u = 1)=1
[depress] (2);
depress (11);
! c#3 is tx group Type C - compliers and effect on Y
]; ! P(u = 1)=1
[depress] (t3);
depress (12);
%cg#2.c#1% !ctrl group (tx=0)
]; ! P(tx=1)=0
! c#1 is ctrl group type A - never-takers (no effect on M or Y)
]; ! P(u = 1)=0
[depress] (1);
depress (10);
! c#2 is ctrl group type B - compliers, but no effect on Y
]; ! P(u = 1)=1
[depress] (2);
depress (11);
! c#3 is ctrl group Type C - compliers and effect on Y
]; ! P(u = 1)=1
[depress] (c4);
depress (12);
Model constraint:
cace = t3-c4;
OUTPUT: tech1 tech8;
David L. DuBois
posted on Friday, September 18, 2015 - 2:37 pm
I'm grappling with how to best approach a CACE analysis using mixture modelling when I have reason to believe that there may be two competing dynamics at work such that assignment to treatment not only affects the DV positively via compliance, but also is having a negative effect on the DV via other processes. To be more concrete, we asked volunteer mentors to do X activities with their mentees -- so compliance can be taken as doing those activities. But it seems that what may also have occurred is that having been directed to do X activities induced mentors to *not* do other things, outside of those specific activities, with their mentees that would benefit the DV - so, it is as if mentors assigned to treatment had the approach to some extent of "doing what they were told to do" but also doing less (than those assigned to control) of other functionally-similar (i.e., also of benefit to the DV) activities, perhaps due to a sense of having already handled those through the assigned intervention activities. I'm gathering that modeling this might have to do with relaxing the exclusion restriction -- however, the only reference I can find on that is relaxing it for never-takers, whereas it seems like I might need to be relaxing for takers. I realize this is a pretty convoluted situation -- thanks very much for whatever suggestions or guidance you can offer!
Bengt O. Muthen
posted on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 11:52 pm
Maybe this CACE paper on our website is somewhat related:
Sobel, M. & Muth�n, B. (2012). Compliance mixture modelling with a zero effect complier class and missing data. Biometrics, 68, 1037-1045. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01791.x Download paper.
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Tree View
Program Credits


text:
Here at Who What Wear, we never shy away from a challenge; in fact, we thrive off them! Whether it's narrowing down the season's top trends, sleuthing through hundreds of items to find the best products, or piecing together our next fashion editorial, we love tackling big projects on your behalf, dear readers. But of all the sartorial conundrums we face on a daily basis, our favorite has to be solving the outfit mysteries of your top style icons. After all, nothing pleases us more than uncovering the exact designer of Kate Bosworth's sultry frock or Fearne Cotton's bright red pants and figuring out where you can purchase them! But of course the heavy lifting doesn't stop there, we've also rounded up loads of alternative pieces to help you create similar head-turning outfits. What can we say--it's all in day's work!
Fearne Cotton
Every day, Fearne Cotton is snapped walking into work at BBC 1 Radio, which means each morning we are greeted with another fabulous Cotton ensemble. The British TV/radio personality always puts together unique and wonderful outfits that are hard to ignore, like the look you spotted her in just last week. Much like her new pretty blonde tresses, you were head-over-heels in love with Cotton's intriguing pair of Topshop jeans in a happy red hue--a nod to the season's obsession with the bold color, no doubt! She polished off her ensemble with a few obsession-worthy pieces in muted tones, like her Mulberry Admiral Coat ($1150) in Gray Melange Wool, vintage top, and brown Marc Jacobs bag. Want to recreate Cotton's eye-popping outfit? Paul & Joe's Jacoue Mid-Rise Straight Leg Jeans ($280) are an absolute must! They come in a similarly playful red hue and have that great slim cut we adore so much. Next, grab Imitation's Nubby Trench Coat ($338) and B. Makowsky's Ollie Large Crossbody Satchel ($298); together these key items will give your look a chic finish.
Kate Bosworth
As fellow Kate Bosworth fans will certainly agree, the gorgeous blonde can do no wrong in the wardrobe department, as today's look demonstrates. Bosworth was spotted arriving at the Chateau Marmont for a Golden Globes after-party last week in a one-of-a-kind Burberry dress with a peek-a-boo mesh insert. Careful not to upstage the frock's awe-inspiring blue hue and sultry cut, Bosworth accented her evening outfit with a few chic silver pieces, including Burberry sandals (check out their Studded Patent Leather Sandals ($450) for a similar style), a Calvin Klein Collection clutch, and a JewelMint bracelet ($30)--a coveted piece from her jewelry collection with stylist Cher Coulter. To put an equally eye-catching ensemble together, start with Motel's The General Dress ($78) or Elizabeth and James' Naomi Sheer-Insert Dress ($325). Style either frock with Urban Expression's Silver Large Envelope Snakeskin Clutch ($48) or Dyeables' Brielle Ankle Strap Sandals ($59), and you'll be the envy of all your friends at your next girls' night out.
Ginnifer Goodwin
Feminine and sweet were the first words that came to mind when we saw Ginnifer Goodwin at the Big Love premiere in Los Angeles earlier this month. The darling actress--sporting her new super-cute pixie cut--looked stunning in Valentino's Tie Neck Tiered Button Front Long Sleeve Dress ($2590, 212.772.6969) and Brian Atwood's Drama Heels ($660) in Nude. The flirty hemline and bubblegum pink hue make this frock a lovely choice for spring, so be sure to snag a similar style, like J. Crew's Silk Organza Soiree Dress ($275) in Ornamental Pink, and pair it with Steve Madden's Glaamm Pumps ($90) for your next garden party.
Katie Holmes
While there has been plenty of buzz surrounding Katie Homes' controversial television series, The Kennedys, and why it won't be aired, you're more concerned with getting the inside scoop on her impeccable personal style--specifically, the delightful combo she put together late last week. Holmes stepped out in Brentwood wearing Equipment's Classic Blouse ($174) in Nature White and cuffed navy Isabel Marant pants from the F/W 10 collection. You love that she kept her look chic by pairing the bold polka-dot print trousers with a basic top, and were hoping to create an equally noteworthy outfit for yourself; fortunately, it's an easy and inexpensive task! Just pick up a pair of Motel's Night Sky Print Tapered Susan Pants ($66) and team them with a simple top, like EightSixty's Off White Button Front Blouse ($56), and you'll be ready to tackle a day of errands in style.
Emma Roberts
Emma Roberts selected a low-key outfit for an afternoon of shopping in Los Angeles two weeks ago. The Scream 4 actress was snapped wearing a Kate Moss for Topshop brown tee, Firetrap leather jacket, J Brand 901 Leggings ($139) in Olympia, and Isabel Marant gray suede boots. For a similarly cool and laidback combo, try G-Star's Lewis Leather Jacket ($460) over Alternative Apparel's Modal Silk Half Sleeve Croppy Top ($50) in Cairo, then pick up either Sam Edelman's Farell Suede Booties ($175) or Bagatt's Ankle Boots ($109). For the final piece of your look, you'll want to snag Betsey Johnson's Ombre Crystal Sunglasses ($75), which are almost identical to Roberts' Tom Ford Bachardy Sunglasses ($450)--a thrilling find indeed!--Jessica Baker
Photos of Kate Bosworth and Emma Roberts, courtesy of Pacific Coast News; Photo of Ginnifer Goodwin, courtesy of INF; Photo of Katie Holmes, courtesy of X17; Photo of Fearne Cotton, courtesy of Splash

subset: commoncrawl


text:
From cameo pieces to rock candy bijoux, fanciful and ornate jewelry has been getting quite a bit of WWW love lately, so it only makes sense that the next accessory obsession on our radar falls under that category too: chunky chokers! An obvious statement accent, these sturdy, dazzling baubles--think: heavily embellished with gems or thickset chains--are the perfect accompaniment to the season's more dramatic looks. And with so many of fashion's finest, including Rihanna, Karolina Kurkova, and Taylor Tomasi Hill, already wearing these architectural and ornamented chokers, it's safe to assume they're a wardrobe essential you need now. Our Accessory Report not only breaks down all the details of today's brilliant looks, but also includes an assortment of lust-worthy necklaces you don't want to miss!
On The Runway
Though the chunky choker turned up on quite a few fall runways, the way this show-stopping accent was worn at the Ralph Lauren Collection show is worth noting. Here, the iconic designer created a sleek after-hours look inspired by the aristocratic ladies of Downton Abbey via the Black Acetate and Viscose Evening Dress ($3998) and High Polish Gold and Crystal Necklace ($1250). The simplicity of the column gown, along with pulled-back hair, leads your eye straight to the colorful choker, putting the lavish piece in the spotlight where it belongs.
On the Red Carpet
WHO: Lucy Liu
WHAT: Arriving at the Lucille Lortel Awards in New York two months ago.
WEAR: Etro Black Silk Puff Sleeve Blouse ($823, 212.317.9096); Dolce & Gabbana skirt; Etro Gold and Gunmetal Rose Collar Necklace ($1054, 212.317.9096); Honor clutch.
WHY: An ornate, gold-plated choker combined with exaggerated shoulders offers a bold take on power dressing.
WHO: Karolina Kurkova
WHAT: Posing for photos at the 20th annual Life Ball and AIDS charity event in Vienna last month.
WEAR: Roberto Cavalli dress from S/S 09 collection; Kornmesser Fine Jewelry diamond and ruby choker.
WHY: Opting for a strapless silhouette ensures a sparkly accent piece will remain the focus of your look.
WHO: Margherita Missoni
WHAT: Attending a screening of Farewell, My Queen in New York earlier this month.
WEAR: Missoni knit top; portrait necklace.
WHY: When working with a more forgiving choker that sits lower on your neck, a scoop neckline makes a pitch-perfect pairing.
On The Streets
WHO: Rihanna
WHAT: Heading to dinner in New York last month.
WEAR: T by Alexander Wang Black Long Sleeve Silk Blouse ($182); J Brand Aiden Distressed Boyfriend-Fit Jeans ($220); chain choker; Henry Holland for Le Specs sunglasses.
WHY: A neutral blouse, buttoned all the way to the top, is great for showcasing a chain-link choker.
WHO: Taylor Tomasi Hill
WHAT: Spotted in between shows at Milan Fashion Week earlier this year.
WEAR: Libertine jacket; Madewell tank top; Burberry pants; Fenton necklace; Pierre Hardy shoes.
WHY: A gem-embellished choker lends a downtown look a touch of uptown elegance.
Get the Look/Chains
If the missing link in your wardrobe is a chain choker, chances are you will revel in our fantastic selections. At the top of our favorites list is Blair Lauren Brown's Pyrite Short Vintage Chain Necklace; it's luxe, with a subtly edgy vibe we love. We're also coveting the chic designs of Kenneth Jay Lane's Polished Lobster Claw Necklace ($220) and Anthropologie's Burnished Chain Necklace ($178)--just be sure to take some style cues from Rihanna and wear either option with your favorite button-up!
Get the Look/Modern or Embellished
If you prefer your choker to really pack a punch, perhaps an adorned style will suit your fancy. Forever 21's Sparkling Collar Necklace ($13) features a glamorous medley of faux diamonds, making it a thrifty thrill you don't want to miss. Ladylike dressers will certainly adore Tuleste Market's Gold Rosette Choker ($125), but if you err on the edgier side, we suggest Juicy Couture's Punk Royals Stud Necklace ($248). Of course, if you want to try something with an ultra-modern look, Claire's Art Gallery Necklace ($15) is your best bet, and would make for the perfect accent piece with a strapless, floor-grazing dress.
Get the Look/Splurge-Worthy
Finally, what would our roundup of chunky chokers be without a few investment-worthy pieces? While we're currently saving up for Fallon's Paulina Enamel Necklace ($300), which has a cool, tribal-inspired look, we think Oscar de la Renta's Crystal Necklace ($517) is the epitome of luxury. Additionally, we have our eye on Forzieri 's glitzy AZ Collection Three-Tone Choker ($633)--it's perfect for a fancy evening fete--and Lanvin's beautiful Strass & Crystal Tutti Frutti Choker ($1590), which is a timeless piece you can treasure for many seasons to come.--Jessica Baker


text:
Wish you knew more about health plan coverage? Here's a great starting point. Whether you have group or individual coverage, basic information about our health plans give you an important start on understanding:
Not all plans are alike. As you learn more about the types of coverage and services available, check your particular group or individual plan details to see how – or if – this information applies to you.
The best way to learn what your plan covers and how your coverage works is to login to BlueAccess and review your Evidence of Coverage, contract or handbook that your will receive when you first sign up.
Putting better health at the center of all we do means helping you get healthy and stay healthy.
Every BlueCross BlueShield plan has a specific provider network – and in some cases a pharmacy and dental network too. Our Find a Doctor tool helps you use your network and save money. When you need care when traveling away from home - and your network, you've still have access to more doctors and hospital nationwide and worldwide with the BlueCard program.
We offer you important Plan Management Tools, information and services that promote better physical and financial health for you and your family. Find out how to make the most of the benefits and services your coverage may include.
BlueVoice℠ is your place to be heard. Give us your opinion and we'll give you a chance to win great prizes!Join Today!
Log in for tools that help you stay healthy and ahead of the game.Health Management Tools


text:
Welcome to Smogon! Check out the Smogon Info Hub for everything you need to know about starting out in the community. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the Introduction Thread, too!
Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
New DPP Tier Lists
Discussion in 'Pokémetrics' started by X-Act, Apr 6, 2009.
- Thread Status:
- Not open for further replies.
Page 2 of 6
Page 2 of 6
- Thread Status:
- Not open for further replies.


text:
Lawmakers in the Last Frontier have passed a bill protecting the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms from federal infringement. Both houses of the Alaska state legislature approved HB 69 and the act now only lacks the governor's signature before it becomes state law.
Although part of the measure was amended somewhat by the state senate — a provision that would have charged federal agents with a felony if they attempted to enforce federal gun grabs within state borders — the bill remains a bold statement of state sovereignty and resistance to federal plans to disarm civilians.
Specifically, the act forbids "state and municipal agencies from using assets to implement or aid in the implementation of the requirements of certain federal statutes, regulations, rules, and orders that are applied to infringe on a person's right to bear arms."
State officials are expressly forbidden from trying to enforce any act of Congress or any presidential executive order that would reduce the scope of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.
Apart from those guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the Alaska act shields other fundamental rights from federal encroachment, as well.
For example, if signed by the governor, the bill would safeguard citizens' rights to due process and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The latter is accomplished by the act's prohibition on the implementation of the REAL ID Act passed by Congress in 2005.
Furthermore, all unconstitutional "federal statutes, regulations, rules, and orders" are declared "unenforceable" in Alaska. Should any such measure be attempted to be imposed upon citizens, the state attorney general is ordered to mount a legal challenge to the "federal statute, regulation, rule, or order that violates the rights of a resident of the state."
With passage of HB 69, Alaska's state legislators have taken the right tack in forcing the federal beast back inside its constitutional cage.
Click here to read the entire article.
Photo of Alaska State Capitol in Juneau


text:
All Weather Capris - 17" (Women's) (out-of-stock)
Out of Stock Product Number: 32152
The women's Patagonia All Weather Capris are right for just about any athletic occasion, from speed work to slacklining. Made with 88% polyester and 12% spandex knit jersey, these go-to running capris are formfitting and nonbinding, with a wide self-fabric waistband that won't dig in. For hot runs or hot yoga, Air Flow mesh panels provide extra cooling. An envelope-style pocket at the center back holds gels or your gym pass. With reflective logo on front and back.
* This product does not qualify for shipping to all countries.
- Durable and soft 88% polyester/12% spandex blend, with completely breathable 100% polyester Air Flow mesh panels for ventilation
- Flattering waistband with a lay-flat drawcord
- Center-back envelope pocket with key loop
- Reflective logo on front and back
- Can be worn alone or under liner-less shorts
- 17˝ inseam
- Body 5.6-oz 88% polyester/12% spandex jersey. Panels and pockets: 3.2-oz 100% polyester Air Flow mesh, all with Polygiene permanent odor control
Gender: Women's
Weight: 124 g (4.4 oz)
Material: Polyester, spandex, Air Flow mesh
Fit: Formfitting
Technologies: [Air Flow mesh]
Air Flow mesh
Season: S13 S14
Vendor ProductId: 24925
Review ProductId: 32152


text:
- Detail Images
Thirty Two took the best-selling Lashed and add dual Boa dials to create the Men's Binary Boa Snowboard Boot for riders who don't have time for laces. The dual Boa closure splits the boot into two zones, so you can crank
down on your feet to keep them planted, and dial in the tension up top
for fine-tuned flex. It has a medium-to-stiff flex, depending on how hard you choose to crank down the dials, so you can tackle everything from park jibs to powder runs, and an articulating cuff gives you extra freedom to tweak grabs and balance presses without sacrificing support.
The Level 2 Intuition liner is heat-moldable for a custom fit, and a molded EVA insole cushions your feet for all-day comfort. High-density Evolution Foam in the outsole also improves cushioning, and it's much lighter than rubber to reduce weight without sacrificing grip so you can still bootpack up icy slopes and rocky ridges. If your idea of an ideal day on the hill is riding anything and everything that comes your way, you just found your boot.
- Dual Boa closures
- Level 2 heat-moldable Intuition liner
- Medium-to-stiff flex
- Internal lacing system
- High-density Evolution Foam outsole
- Molded EVA insole
- Articulated cuff and performance backstay
Share your thoughts
What do you think of the
ThirtyTwo Binary Boa Snowboard Boot - Men's
? Share a...
Very Nice purchase...
- Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer
Initially i was a little frustrated with the stiffness of the boots but they are breaking in nicely. I ride strictly park/rails and approx 30x times per season in NJ. I would definitely recommended going to a dealer or trying to help heat molding them yourself as recommended by 32, otherwise they will seem a little uncomfortable until they are broken in. they fit very very snug and are true to size. The only reason i am giving it 4 stars and not 5 is that the front boa is a coiler but the side boa is not. You would think for a few extra pennies that 32 would have just put identical boa system. Banging into rails i tend to break them sometimes and not i have to stock different parts.
Tried these on in store and felt a little too stiff. The Lashed felt ok but feel they'll get too soft. I ride all mountain except park but freestyle here and there. Will the Binary's pack out noticeably?
Go with the Binary or the Lashed? Thanks!
they are the same boot just a different closure system


text:
Wash. town will discuss selling marijuana to ease budget crunch
WHITE SALMON, Wash. – Never let it be said White Salmon is slow to adapt.
The tiny S.W. Washington city is considering making the transition from arresting people for selling marijuana to selling pot itself.
The city council was scheduled to discuss doing so at a meeting Monday morning, said Mayor David Poucher. It would likely be competing for a license with private interests.
"I think that it's an idea that is absolutely worth investigating. I still think we need a lot more information before we make a decision yes or no."
The idea came into focus after North Bonneville, which is 30 miles east of White Salmon, had a similar discussion.
Poucher said that, while he voted against legalizing marijuana in Washington, the city could use the cash. White Salmon has lost $60,000 in tax revenue since the state got of the business of selling liquor
"I'm not in favor of including another intoxicant into society, so I'm not really a big fan of it," he said. "But at the same time, I was looking at it and saying wow, if you're going to have it, can we make money with it? Can the city make money with it?"
Poucher said it's not his decision to make – the final call belongs to the city council. He said he expects a decision to be made in the next 10 days.
In the meantime, White Salmon will gather as much information as possible. Even filling out the application – a process Poucher estimated will cost $10,000-$15,000 – is daunting.
Worse, there's no guarantee the city will be granted a license if it applies.
Poucher said that, if the city does end up getting into the pot business, he foresees using the money to mitigate problems he expects legalization to bring.
"We would put it strictly toward our police and fire department," he said. "We think having the marijuana initiative is going to create some problems.
"I don't know if it's going to bring people breaking the law, but it's going to bring way more people into the community. And I think when you start doing something like that, you're going to have underage people who are going to be wanting to do this, and we are going to be cracking down on that."
Specifically, Poucher said he'd like to add one more police officer to the city's force and create some breathing room in the general fund.
White Salmon might end up being uniquely in need of the money, Poucher said.
"We are a border town," he said. "We are very close to Portland. We have an awful lot of young individuals that like to recreate in the area. We have an awfully big wind-surfing population … in the summertime and I think that there's a lot of that population that probably uses (marijuana) – I'm just guessing."


text:
Speed Dating Exec to Speak at Felician Business Lecture
The Felician College Division of Business and Management Sciences is hosting the third installment of this year's Leadership and Innovation Lecture Series. The upcoming lecture will feature Risa Glaser, owner of Eclectic Events, an event planning company that specializes in event strategies for singles, reunions, not-for-profits, and corporate events. Ms.Glaser holds the largest speed dating events in the country.
The title of her talk is "The Business of Romance."
The event will take place on Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the upper lecture hall of Sammartino Hall on Felician's Rutherford Campus, 223 Montross Avenue.
In addition to Eclectic Events, Ms. Glaser is also president of Glaser Associates, a business consulting firm that advises on legal, financial, and management issues. She holds a B.A. from Brandeis Universty and a JD/MBA from Hofstra University.
The event is free and open to the public. For more information, please call Patricia McTaggart at 201-559-3569 or email@example.com.


text:
G-Class SUV
Built to feel like it'll last forever.
Starting at: $115,400*MSRP
As endearing as it is enduring.
Created to conquer challenges on six continents, the 36-year evolution of the G-Class keeps elevating the pinnacle of refinement. From its advanced lighting to its classic upright shape, its purposeful elegance is both unmistakable and irrefutable. Every surface of the G-Class reflects its confident capability on any surface of the earth.
Feels like no other SUV, because it's built like no other SUV.
Its sturdy ladder frame and galvanized steel body are hand-welded. The frame is flowed with hot wax to resist corrosion. Even its wiring harnesses are hand-loomed. It takes more than 40 hours to craft each G-Class virtually entirely by hand. Beyond strength, more than quality, how a G-Class comes to life bestows it with unwavering character.
Half a mile of thread. 45,000 stitches. And the eye of a single inspector.
Even with its dramatically fresh design, ergonomically optimized layout and advanced luxuries, the G-Class cabin remains a living tribute to a tradition of handcraftsmanship that's all but vanished from the earth. And for 34 years, a single inspector has allowed no G-Class to undergo your scrutiny until it first meets his.
designo leather and wood: Matched by eye, unmatched by anything.
Exquisitely handcrafted designo leather and cabin trim (standard on the G 63 AMG) offers an extensive palette of personalization options, with eight colors of Nappa leather, four woods and carbon fiber from which to choose. An Exclusive Package for the G63 features five leather colors with distinctive diamond-pattern stitching.
Aptitude at any altitude.
As you make your way off-road, three sequentially lockable differentials offer increasingly masterful capability. Each differential can be locked in sequence (center, rear, then front) via a set of buttons on the dash, to help maintain the ideal balance of torque and traction for the situation.
ESP, 4-ETS, ABS, Brake Assist and Trailer Stability Assist do not operate when the differential locks are engaged. Off-road driving should only be attempted by drivers with the necessary skill, experience and understanding of the vehicle's limits. Locked differentials will limit steering ability. Read Operator's Manual before driving off-road or in deep water.
Attitude at any latitude.
The 382-hp G550 V-8 generates 391 lb-ft of torque, with an exceptional 75 percent of it on tap at just 1,000 rpm. To help cut weight but not durability, the engine block is diecast from aluminum with a solid bedplate. A dual-stage intake and continuously variable timing of both its intake and exhaust valves enhances efficiency and emissions.
Confidence in any season.
The standard G-Class permanent all-wheel drive system continually sends power to all four wheels. Its 4-wheel Electronic Traction System (4-ETS®) instantly apportions torque to the wheels that can use it best, for surefooted grip on snowy and wet roads. Off-road, its locking differentials help you conquer muddy, loose or uneven terrain.
ESP, 4-ETS, ABS, Brake Assist and Trailer Stability Assist do not operate when the differential locks are engaged. Off-road driving should only be attempted by drivers with the necessary skill, experience and understanding of the vehicle's limits. Locked differentials will limit steering ability. Read Operator's Manual before driving off-road or in deep water.
No system, regardless of how advanced, can overcome the laws of physics or correct careless driving. Please always wear your seat belt. Performance is limited by available traction, which snow, ice and other conditions can affect. Always drive carefully, consistent with conditions. Best performance in snow is obtained with winter tires.
Horsepower in your hands.
What happens when you introduce two more hands to the crafting of the G-Class? Superlative power underfoot. A single master engine builder creates each 536-hp biturbo V-8 by hand. It's then teamed with an AMG SPEEDSHIFT® PLUS 7-speed and 20-inch AMG® wheels, and delivered to your hands in the exquisite luxury of designo Nappa leather.
Comfortable cruising, extra sensory perceptions.
Technological teamwork helps make highway driving safer and easier. DISTRONIC PLUS® cruise control uses radar to adapt your speed to the traffic flow, even stop-and-go. Blind Spot Assist, a rearview camera and PARKTRONIC help you sense your surroundings, for added safety when changing lanes or maneuvering in tight quarters.
DISTRONIC PLUS adaptive cruise control is no substitute for active driving involvement. It does not adapt cruising speed in response to stationary objects, nor does it predict the curvature and lane layout of the road ahead or the movement of vehicles ahead. It is the driver's responsibility at all times to be attentive to traffic and road conditions, and to provide the steering, braking and other driving inputs necessary to retain control of the vehicle. Drivers are cautioned not to wait for the DISTRONIC Proximity Warning System before braking, as that may not afford sufficient time and distance to brake safely.
Blind Spot Assist may not be sufficient to avoid all accidents involving vehicles in your blind spot and does not estimate the speed of approaching vehicles. It should not be used as a sole substitute for driver awareness and checking of surrounding traffic conditions.
Rearview camera does not audibly notify driver of nearby objects and is not a substitute for actively checking around the vehicle for any obstacles or people. Images displayed may be limited by camera field of view, weather, lighting conditions and the presence of dirt, ice or snow on the camera.
Convenient connections, extraordinary benefits.
From your car, computer or smartphone, mbrace connects you and your G-Class. And it does it in the ways you already connect with the world: With an ever-growing array of apps. Remote vehicle features. The search help of Google® and Yelp. And assistance in an emergency. Standard mbrace® includes a trial subscription to the three mbrace Packages.
All Mercedes-Benz mbrace® services operate only where cellular and Global Positioning Satellite signals are available, which are provided by third parties and not within the control of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. An mbrace Package trial period is offered on new, Certified Pre-Owned and pre-owned sales and leases at an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealer. Subscriber Agreement is required for service to be active. Some services are only available on select vehicles. Your PIN is required in order to use certain services. Some services may be limited or restricted in some areas. Driver is responsible for complying with traffic and other laws. See your dealer or MBUSA.com/mbrace for details.
The mbrace Mobile App is compatible with Apple iPhone® models running iOS 7.0 or later, and Android-based phones running OS 2.3 or later.
Comprehensive entertainment, expert guidance.
Advanced entertainment, navigation and communication systems work with intuitive ease in the G-Class. Bluetooth® lets you make calls hands-free and play music wire-free. The elegant central controller and color displays put a world of features within easy reach. A new Rear Seat Entertainment option brings first-rate video to the second row.
While the navigation system provides directional assistance, the driver must remain focused on safe driving behavior, including paying attention to traffic and street signs. The driver should utilize the system's audio cues while driving and should only consult the map or visual displays once the vehicle has been stopped in a safe place. Maps do not cover all areas or all routes within an area.
Bluetooth® interface does not provide phone charging or external antenna. Voice interactivity feature is dependent on selected handset. Phone sold separately. See dealer for a list of approved compatible phones. Bluetooth is a registered trademark of Bluetooth SIG, Inc.
The purchase of a new, satellite radio-enabled vehicle includes a 6-month introductory subscription to the Sirius All Access package, and a 3-year introductory subscription to SiriusXM Traffic and SiriusXM Weather. SiriusXM Traffic and Weather services are available for select markets. SiriusXM Satellite Radio, SiriusXM Traffic and SiriusXM Weather subscriptions are sold separately or as a package after trial period. If you decide to continue your subscription after your trial, the plan you choose will automatically renew and you will be charged according to your chosen payment method at then-current rates. Fees and taxes apply. To cancel you must call SiriusXM at 1-866-635-2349. See SiriusXM Customer Agreement for complete terms at siriusxm.com. All fees and programming subject to change.


text:
Staying Connected
Protecting Kids Online
Simple steps to get you started
As incredible as it is, digital technology hasn't made the job of protecting our kids any easier—especially when you add mobile phones to the mix. On top of threats like phishing and malware, there are also concerns that are more about malicious behavior than malicious code. Talk to your kids about these issues, build a clear picture of how they see them and remember to always keep the home computer in a well-frequented area of your home.
Sexting is when someone sends sexually explicit messages or photographs using mobile phones or instant messaging programs. Why is it a concern to parents? According to a study conducted by CosmoGirl and The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 20% of teens have sent someone nude or semi-nude pictures or videos of themselves. That's one in five—and there is no taking those images back. They may be circulated among peers and posted to the Internet for anyone to see. On top of all this, because they are minors, it's illegal. Teens can find themselves facing charges for sending or possessing child pornography.
What can parents do? It's important not to overreact; you could compound the problem. Talk to your kids and try to understand their perspective. Let them know that, while we hope friends will keep secrets, it doesn't always work out that way. Consider setting texting limits for kids as well—most wireless carriers have options that can preset such limits. You can also periodically review the content of their phones with them. Don't look at their phones without their knowledge, but do stay aware of what is on their devices.
Adult Content
Pornography, violent materials, hate speech and even chemical recipes for explosives, drugs and poisons are all available on the Internet. Even if your kids aren't looking for adult content, there are many ways for them to encounter it accidentally—they could click bad links, open anonymous instant messages or just mistype a URL.
Filtering programs are strongly recommended for the youngest Internet users. Your Cox Internet service includes filters to block adult content, but there are a number of additional programs to consider if you want more protection, like Net Nanny, Cybersitter and others. Top Ten Reviews has ratings that can help you choose which one is right for you.
Kids are curious. Even though parental control programs may be in place, savvy computer users (like almost every teenager) can find ways around them. That's why it's important for kids to know that if they accidentally open an adult website, they should close it immediately and let you know. Adult sites often have backdoor programs designed to download malicious software that can damage your computer, so you'll need to run a system scan to ensure that you haven't been infected.
For more information about filtering and computer protection from Cox, sign in to Internet Tools.
Sexual Predators
This is a subject that no one likes to think about, but we all have to face. There are people online right now trying to connect with kids and win them over, most likely by impersonating children themselves. They want pictures of kids to trade within their illegal circles and, ultimately, they want to meet and harm children. The majority of these predators look for kids in chat rooms, social spaces and instant messaging.
The best approach is to never provide personal information online. Your kids should know to ask you before ever giving any personal information out to any website, especially on social sites like MySpace and Facebook, and never in a chat room or bulletin board system. Make sure they understand that the people they meet online are still strangers, and they should't trust someone just because they say they're the same age or gender.
Providing personal details, like addresses, what school they go to, where they like to hang out or who their friends are, can cause serious trouble and make your child a target. iSafe.org has a useful guide that offers tips on how to elude Internet predators. Read this guide and talk to your kids about it.
Maximize your at-home viewing experience with a home theater.
Get ready for a lesson in what's so hot about sports with Cox... and a healthy dose of smack talk.
Forget the movie theater! Experience 3D at home with Cox Advanced TV.
People love Facebook or they hate Facebook. Whatevs, as the kids say.
Get pointers on how to best use your clicker.
Learn how to get the most from your TV service with the pros at Cox.
The pros at Cox give their tips on setting up your home network.
Maximize your at-home viewing experience with a home theater.
Learn how to get the most from the Web with the pros at Cox Communications.
Setting up parental controls is easy with Cox.
Worried about online safety? Learn about security from the Cox pros.
Let your Cox services help keep your family bond strong, even if you're not all under the same roof.
Find out how this family stays connected across the country.
Find out how this family uses Cox services to stay ahead of the curve.
Bring it all together to stay in touch with the world.
If music is your life, Cox services can help you live it.
How can you keep your kids safe with so much out there?
Get ready for a lesson in what's so hot about sports with Cox... and a healthy dose of smack talk.


text:
Archive for the 'machining' tag
Four-Links – Brown Dog Welding, Crosley fire truck returned to park, Victor Wouk and the hybrid car, RC UAZ
* As with Bomonster, we've been enjoying the metal sculptures of Josh of Brown Dog Welding over on the H.A.M.B.'s Friday Art Show for some time now, so we thoroughly enjoyed the interview he gave to the Rusty Knuckles blog recently.
Photo by Ray Finger, Star Gazette
* Thanks to Keith on the Crosley Gang mailing list for forwarding this story along: The Crosley fire truck that once ferried kids around Kiddieland at Eldridge Park in Elmira, New York, has been restored and returned to the park, though now as part of a permanent display.
* Based on the story of Victor Wouk and EPA bureaucrat Eric Stork related over at Cars In Depth this week, the history of hybrid gasoline-electric cars could have taken a radically different course were it not for one giant ego from an unexpected player.
* Following up on our mention of radio-control off-road trucks a couple weeks ago, we'll point to this post over at Hooniverse of an incredible scratchbuilt radio-control UAZ 469B built by an enthusiast in Italy.
* And finally, David Greenlees over at The Old Motor took some time out from posting excellent photos of old cars to detail how he machines flywheels for some of the cars he restores, allowing them to use electric starters.