CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 857Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research Topics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Optimal time lags in panel studies.

Dormann, Christian, Griffin, Mark A.·2015·Psychological Methods
DOI 10.1037/met0000041
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cross-lagged regression coefficients are frequently used to test hypotheses in panel designs. However, these coefficients have particular properties making them difficult to interpret. In particular, cross-lagged regression coefficients may vary, depending on the respective time lags between different sets of measurement occasions. This article introduces the concept of an optimal time lag. Further, it is demonstrated that optimal time lags in panel studies are related to the stabilities of the variables investigated, and that in unidirectional systems, they may be unrelated to the size of possible true effects. The results presented also suggest that optimal time lags for panel designs are usually quite short. Implications are (a) that interpreting cross-lagged regression coefficients requires taking the time lag between measurement occasions into account, and (b) that in much research, far shorter time lags than those frequently found in the literature are justifiable, and we call for more "shortitudinal" studies in the future.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/met0000041

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 51 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–857 of 857

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dormann, C., & Griffin, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Methods
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2015
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
489-505
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
DOI
10.1037/met0000041
OpenAlex
W2411399476
Cited by
856
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 176 · 2025: 134 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 3
FWCI
22.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (acceptedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
panel survey
MeSH terms
Child, Depression, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Regression Analysis, Research Design, Time Factors, Models, Statistical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review