The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect size guidelines for cross-lagged effects.
Open accessAbstract
Cross-lagged models are by far the most commonly used method to test the prospective effect of one construct on another, yet there are no guidelines for interpreting the size of cross-lagged effects. This research aims to establish empirical benchmarks for cross-lagged effects, focusing on the cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) and the random intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM). We drew a quasirepresentative sample of studies published in four subfields of psychology (i.e., developmental, social-personality, clinical, and industrial-organizational). The dataset included 1,028 effect sizes for the CLPM and 302 effect sizes for the RI-CLPM, based on data from 174 samples. For the CLPM, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the distribution corresponded to cross-lagged effect sizes of .03, .07, and .12, respectively. For the RI-CLPM, the corresponding values were .02, .05, and .11. Effect sizes did not differ significantly between the CLPM and RI-CLPM. Moreover, effect sizes did not differ significantly across subfields and were not moderated by design characteristics. However, effect sizes were moderated by the concurrent correlation between the constructs and the stability of the predictor. Based on the findings, we propose to use .03 (small effect), .07 (medium effect), and .12 (large effect) as benchmark values when interpreting the size of cross-lagged effects, for both the CLPM and RI-CLPM. In addition to aiding in the interpretation of results, the present findings will help researchers plan studies by providing information needed to conduct power analyses and estimate minimally required sample sizes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 · Cited by 15,744
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Henry, N. W., Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1977) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2064799 · Cited by 7,089
A critique of the cross-lagged panel model
Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0038889 · Cited by 4,005
Cited by
Why the cross-lagged panel model is almost never the right choice
Lucas, R. E. (2023) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459231158378 · Cited by 361
Huang, S., Lai, X., Ke, L., Li, Y., Wang, H., Zhao, X., Dai, X., & Wang, Y. (2024) · Psychology Research and Behavior Management · doi:10.2147/prbm.s440889 · Cited by 196
Social Media Use and Depressive Symptoms During Early Adolescence
Nagata, J. M., Otmar, C. D., Shim, J., Balasubramanian, P., Cheng, C. M., Li, E. J., Al-Shoaibi, A. A. A., Shao, I. Y., Ganson, K. T., Testa, A., et al. (2025) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.11704 · Cited by 71
Yamamoto, M., Mezawa, H., Sakurai, K., Mori, C., Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group, Kamijima, M., Yamazaki, S., Ohya, Y., Kishi, R., Yaegashi, N., et al. (2023) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.3643 · Cited by 51
Falkenström, F. (2024) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102435 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Orth, U., Meier, L. L., Bühler, J. L., Dapp, L. C., Krauss, S., Messerli, D., & Robins, R. W.
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 2024-04
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 421-433
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W4283311459
- Cited by
- 720
- References
- 48
- FWCI
- 72.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect size guidelines for cross-lagged effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/met0000499
- The paper
- Orth, U., Meier, L. L., Bühler, J. L., Dapp, L. C., Krauss, S., Messerli, D., & Robins, R. W. (2024). Effect size guidelines for cross-lagged effects. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000499
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
