Cited by 94Psychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMental Health Research Topics

Longitudinal stability of latent means and individual differences: A unified approach

Marsh, Herbert W., Grayson, David·1994·Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal

Abstract

We examined the stability of responses to a multi‐item self‐esteem scale collected on five occasions over an 8‐year period. A wide variety of approaches were critically examined that considered the stability of means, individual differences (i.e., test‐retest correlations), and factor structures using traditional approaches (e.g., ANOVA and correlations) and structural equation models. Structural equation models based on multiple indicators provided a unified analytic approach for evaluating different aspects of stability and offered important advantages over traditional approaches. We describe a hierarchy of invariances and the nature of interpretations that are justified by different patterns of factor structure invariance associated with each level. We conclude that the assumptions underlying the typical repeated‐measures ANOVA approach to testing mean differences in longitudinal data are far more restrictive, less easily tested, and less likely to be met than those in the structural equation modeling approach advocated here, and that the use of ANOVA for this purpose requires a huge leap of faith that can rarely be justified on logical or empirical grounds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10705519409539984

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • Models for repeatedly measured groups can be tested, which allows one to investigate black-white differences in cognitive development.

    “In addition, models for repeatedly measured groups can tested (e.g., Jöreskog, 1979;Marsh & Grayson, 1994, Hanna & Lei, 1985), which allows one to investigate black-white (say) differences in cognitive development.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D.
Affiliations
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
Published
1994-01
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
317-359
ISSN
  • 1070-5511 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8007
OpenAlex
W2012501317
Cited by
94
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
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
longitudinal stability, latent means, individual differences, self-esteem, test-retest correlation, factor structure invariance, structural equation modeling, repeated measures ANOVA, multi-item scales

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