Cited by 80Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research Topics

Changes in Size and Interpretation of Parameter Estimates in Within-Person Models in the Presence of Time-Invariant and Time-Varying Covariates

Open access
Mund, Marcus, Johnson, Matthew D., Nestler, Steffen·2021·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

For several decades, cross-lagged panel models (CLPM) have been the dominant statistical model in relationship research for investigating reciprocal associations between two (or more) constructs over time. However, recent methodological research has questioned the frequent usage of the CLPM because, amongst other things, the model commingles within-person associations with between-person associations, while most developmental research questions pertain to within-person processes. Furthermore, the model presumes that there are no third variables that confound the relationships between the longitudinally assessed variables. Therefore, the usage of alternative models such as the Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM) or the Latent Curve Model with Structured Residuals (LCM-SR) has been suggested. These models separate between-person from within-person variation and they also control for time constant covariates. However, there might also be third variables that are not stable but rather change across time and that can confound the relationships between the variables studied in these models. In the present article, we explain the differences between the two types of confounders and investigate how they affect the parameter estimates of within-person models such as the RI-CLPM and the LCM-SR.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.666928

Cites

72 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • RI-CLPM effectively distinguish between-person and within-person variation.

    “while these models effectively distinguish between-person and within-person variation and attempt to account for time-invariant confounding, they do not address the potential impact of time-varying confounders (Mund et al., 2021).”
  • RI-CLPM attempt to account for time-invariant confounding.

    “while these models effectively distinguish between-person and within-person variation and attempt to account for time-invariant confounding, they do not address the potential impact of time-varying confounders (Mund et al., 2021).”
  • RI-CLPM do not address the potential impact of time-varying confounders.

    “while these models effectively distinguish between-person and within-person variation and attempt to account for time-invariant confounding, they do not address the potential impact of time-varying confounders (Mund et al., 2021).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mund, M., Johnson, M. D., & Nestler, S.
Affiliations
  • Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • University of Münster (DE)
Corresponding author
Mund, Marcus
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2021-09-01
Volume
12
Pages
666928-666928
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3197853676
Cited by
80
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 2
FWCI
9.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Common Library Network (Der Gemeinsame Bibliotheksverbund) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
cross-lagged panel model, random intercept cross-lagged panel model, within-person associations, between-person associations, time-varying covariates, bidirectional relationship, confounding, parameter estimates, longitudinal analysis

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