The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From Data to Causes I: Building A General Cross-Lagged Panel Model (GCLM)
Open accessAbstract
This is the first paper in a series of two that synthesizes, compares, and extends methods for causal inference with longitudinal panel data in a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework. Starting with a cross-lagged approach, this paper builds a general cross-lagged panel model (GCLM) with parameters to account for stable factors while increasing the range of dynamic processes that can be modeled. We illustrate the GCLM by examining the relationship between national income and subjective well-being (SWB), showing how to examine hypotheses about short-run (via Granger-Sims tests) versus long-run effects (via impulse responses). When controlling for stable factors, we find no short-run or long-run effects among these variables, showing national SWB to be relatively stable, whereas income is less so. Our second paper addresses the differences between the GCLM and other methods. Online Supplementary Materials offer an Excel file automating GCLM input for Mplus (with an example also for Lavaan in R) and analyses using additional data sets and all program input/output. We also offer an introductory GCLM presentation at https://youtu.be/tHnnaRNPbXs . We conclude with a discussion of issues surrounding causal inference.
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
Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods
Granger, C. W. J. (1969) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912791 · Cited by 22,989
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298
Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects
Nickell, S. (1981) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1911408 · Cited by 8,735
Hsiao, C. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139839327 · Cited by 7,869
The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 · Cited by 7,143
Self-citationBarsalou, L. W. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 · Cited by 5,936 · cited 2×
“To elaborate, if a unit i is a person, psychological factors can explain stability over time, including stable patterns of embodied cognition (Barsalou, 2008), social roles and norms (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Fournier, Moskowitz, & Zuroff, 2008), cognitive ability (Deary, Pattie, & Starr, 2013), personality or affective…”
BackgroundStatistics and Causal Inference
Holland, P. W. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 · Cited by 5,293
Early-warning signals for critical transitions
Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W. A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S. R., Dakos, V., Held, H., van Nes, E. H., Rietkerk, M., & Sugihara, G. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08227 · Cited by 4,854
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
Self-citationFixed Effects Regression Models
Allison, P. (2009) · doi:10.4135/9781412993869 · Cited by 3,999
Self-citation
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
Sibling Constructs: What Are They, Why Do They Matter, and How Should You Handle Them?
Lawson, K. M., & Robins, R. W. (2021) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/10888683211047101 · Cited by 144
Causal inference on human behaviour
Bailey, D. H., Jung, A. J., Beltz, A. M., Eronen, M. I., Gische, C., Hamaker, E. L., Kording, K. P., Lebel, C., Lindquist, M. A., Moeller, J., et al. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01939-z · Cited by 56
Self-citationFalkenström, F. (2024) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102435 · Cited by 39
Zhang, Y., Liu, X., & Chen, W. (2020) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-019-09650-x · Cited by 35
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., Parker, P. D., Murayama, K., Guo, J., Basarkod, G., Dicke, T., Donald, J. N., & Morin, A. J. S. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102170 · Cited by 19
Luszawski, C. A., Luszawski, M. M., Bender, A. M., Noel, M., & Yeates, K. O. (2026) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1177/08977151261425214
Metadata
- Authors
- Zyphur, M. J., Allison, P. D., Tay, L., Voelkle, M. C., Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., Hamaker, E. L., Shamsollahi, A., Pierides, D. C., Koval, P., & Diener, E.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-05-21
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 651-687
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2945530942
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 22.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.
