In Models 1 and 2, the response probability for the STOPP composite indicator was allowed to vary across GPs but the effect of each patient level one explanatory variable was assumed to be the same for each GP.
On top of the predefined indicators, the participants were allowed to suggest and create their own classes.
Furthermore, the unique variances (error variances) of the same indicators of different measurement occasions were allowed to correlate with each other.
The error terms of each indicator at t0 and t1 were allowed to covary with each other, as is the recommended procedure in longitudinal structural equation models [ 37, 38].
Measurement errors between indicators were assumed to be uncorrelated, but factors were allowed to correlate with each other.
A state indicator variable is allowed to move from a state to another at each frame.
Of course, no one who takes such an indicator seriously should be allowed to manage money.
The fact that, in recent Presidential elections, polling data from the last few months of campaigning has proved a fairly reliable indicator of the outcome shouldn't be allowed to disguise this fact.
The transition matrix of the current model uses less parameters and the correlations between the state-indicator variable and the component distributions are allowed to be different.
The panel was allowed to adjust these indicators, as well as the definitions of them and we encouraged the panel to use their own knowledge and experience.
