The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Drawing Conclusions from Cross-Lagged Relationships: Re-Considering the Role of the Time-Interval
Open accessAbstract
The cross-lagged panel model (CLPM), a discrete-time (DT) SEM model, is frequently used to gather evidence for (reciprocal) Granger-causal relationships when lacking an experimental design. However, it is well known that CLPMs can lead to different parameter estimates depending on the time-interval of observation. Consequently, this can lead to researchers drawing conflicting conclusions regarding the sign and/or dominance of relationships. Multiple authors have suggested the use of continuous-time models to address this issue.In this article, we demonstrate the exact circumstances under which such conflicting conclusions occur. Specifically, we show that such conflicts are only avoided in general in the case of bivariate, stable, nonoscillating, first-order systems, when comparing models with uniform time-intervals between observations. In addition, we provide a range of tools, proofs, and guidelines regarding the comparison of discrete- and continuous-time parameter estimates.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods
Granger, C. W. J. (1969) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912791 · Cited by 22,989
Breitung, J., & Hamilton, J. D. (1995) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2076916 · Cited by 11,114
Hamilton, J. D. (1994) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9780691218632 · Cited by 7,941
Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering
Strogatz, S. H., Friedman, M. J., Mallinckrodt, A. J., & McKay, S. R. (1994) · Computers in Physics · doi:10.1063/1.4823332 · Cited by 4,654
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
Nineteen Dubious Ways to Compute the Exponential of a Matrix, Twenty-Five Years Later
Moler, C., & Van Loan, C. (2003) · SIAM Review · doi:10.1137/s00361445024180 · Cited by 2,357
Intensive Longitudinal Methods: An Introduction to Diary and Experience Sampling Research
Bolger, N. P., & Laurenceau, J. (2013) · Cited by 2,030
Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.606716 · Cited by 1,471
Causal Analysis with Panel Data
Finkel, S. E. (1995) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412983594 · Cited by 1,369
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- 10.1111/rssa.2012.175.issue-4 · DOI
- Boker S. M., 2010, Statistical methods for modeling human dynamics: An interdisciplinary dialogue
- Kuiper R. M., Effect on residuals in time-lagged relationships due to omitted variables: It is time to go continuously
- Oud J., 2002, Kwantitatieve Methoden, 69, 1
- 10.1007/978-3-642-11760-2_7 · DOI
- Pelz, D. & Lew, R. (1970). Sociological methodology. In E. Borgatta (Ed.), Heise’s causal model applied . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Yue Z., 2016, Arxiv Preprint, 1605
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Three Extensions of the Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model
Mulder, J. D., & Hamaker, E. L. (2021) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705511.2020.1784738 · Cited by 1,151
Robinaugh, D. J., Hoekstra, R. H. A., Toner, E. R., & Borsboom, D. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291719003404 · Cited by 861
A primer on two-level dynamic structural equation models for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus.
McNeish, D., & Hamaker, E. L. (2019) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000250 · Cited by 642
Groen, R. N., Ryan, O., Wigman, J. T. W., Riese, H., Penninx, B. W. J. H., Giltay, E. J., Wichers, M., & Hartman, C. A. (2020) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01738-z · Cited by 240
Liekefett, L., Christ, O., & Becker, J. C. (2023) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672211060965 · Cited by 155
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuiper, R. M., & Ryan, O.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Kuiper, Rebecca M.
- Venue
- Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-03-05
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 809-823
- ISSN
- 1070-5511 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8007
- OpenAlex
- W2791017149
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 13.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO (Onderzoekstalent Grant 406-15-128; Kuiper, VENI Grant 451-16-019)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Keywords
- cross-lagged panel model, time intervals, Granger causality, reciprocal causation, parameter estimates, first-order systems, causal inference
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
