Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models

Orth, Ulrich; Clark, D. Angus; Donnellan, M. Brent; Robins, Richard W. (2021). Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), pp. 1013-1034. American Psychological Association 10.1037/pspp0000358

[img]
Preview
Text
Orth_et_al_2021a_JPSP.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Preview
[img] Text
2020-54836-001.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (272kB) | Request a copy

In virtually all areas of psychology, the question of whether a particular construct has a prospective effect on another is of fundamental importance. For decades, the cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) has been the model of choice for addressing this question. However, CLPMs have recently been critiqued, and numerous alternative models have been proposed. Using the association between low self-esteem and depression as a case study, we examined the behavior of seven competing longitudinal models in 10 samples, each with at least four waves of data and sample sizes ranging from 326 to 8,259. The models were compared in terms of convergence, fit statistics, and consistency of parameter estimates. The traditional CLPM and the random intercepts cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) converged in every sample, whereas the other models frequently failed to converge or did not converge properly. The RI-CLPM exhibited better model fit than the CLPM, whereas the CLPM produced more consistent cross-lagged effects (both across and within samples) than the RI-CLPM. We discuss the models from a conceptual perspective, emphasizing that the models test conceptually distinct psychological and developmental processes, and we address the implications of the empirical findings with regard to model selection. Moreover, we provide practical recommendations for researchers interested in testing prospective associations between constructs and suggest using the CLPM when focused on between-person effects and the RI-CLPM when focused on within-person effects.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

07 Faculty of Human Sciences > Institute of Psychology > Developmental Psychology

UniBE Contributor:

Orth, Ulrich

Subjects:

100 Philosophy > 150 Psychology

ISSN:

0022-3514

Publisher:

American Psychological Association

Language:

English

Submitter:

Ulrich Orth

Date Deposited:

07 Jan 2021 17:26

Last Modified:

05 Dec 2022 15:43

Publisher DOI:

10.1037/pspp0000358

PubMed ID:

32730068

BORIS DOI:

10.48350/150686

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/150686

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback