Table 4.

Prediction summary of estimation sample—goodness-of-fit results from total, dimension, and item-level mappings

Group	N	Mean	Min	Max	Correlation coefficient	R2	MAE	MSE	RMSE	Absolute errors < 0.05 (%)	Average error
Panel A—Total score mapping
Observed CHU9D	674	0.879	0.384	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
OLS	674	0.879	0.607	0.980	0.624	0.390	0.066	0.008	0.089	51.63	0
GLM	674	0.879	0.616	0.981	0.623	0.388	0.066	0.008	0.089	51.63	0
BETA	674	0.886	0.746	0.975	0.580	0.336	0.068	0.009	0.092	52.23	− 0.007
CLAD	674	0.890	0.573	0.997	0.624	0.389	0.064	0.008	0.089	53.12	− 0.012
Panel B—Dimension score mapping
Observed CHU9D	674	0.879	0.384	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
OLS	674	0.879	0.537	0.990	0.712	0.506	0.059	0.006	0.080	54.45	0
GLM	674	0.879	0.577	0.991	0.708	0.502	0.059	0.006	0.080	53.41	0
BETA	674	0.886	0.480	0.980	0.676	0.458	0.062	0.007	0.084	55.93	− 0.007
CLAD	674	0.889	0.515	1	0.711	0.505	0.058	0.007	0.080	56.38	− 0.010
Panel C—Item-level mapping
Observed CHU9D	648	0.878	0.384	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
OLS	648	0.878	0.442	1	0.761	0.579	0.055	0.005	0.074	59.79	0
GLM	648	0.878	0.489	1*	0.760	0.578	0.055	0.005	0.074	59.2	0
BETA	648	0.884	0.418	0.986	0.715	0.511	0.059	0.007	0.081	60.24	− 0.007
CLAD	648	0.889	0.453	1	0.749	0.561	0.053	0.006	0.075	62.91	− 0.011

The sample size for the item-level mapping is slightly smaller (648 vs. 674) due to missing values in some items

*CHU9D predicted values were truncated at 1