The cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) is believed by many to overcome the problems associated with the use of cross-lagged correlations as a way to study causal influences in longitudinal panel data. The current article, however, shows that if stability of constructs is to some extent of a trait-like, time-invariant nature, the autoregressive relationships of the CLPM fail to adequately account for this. As a result, the lagged parameters that are obtained with the CLPM do not represent the actual within-person relationships over time, and this may lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the presence, predominance, and sign of causal influences. In this article we present an alternative model that separates the within-person process from stable between-person differences through the inclusion of random intercepts, and we discuss how this model is related to existing structural equation models that include cross-lagged relationships. We derive the analytical relationship between the cross-lagged parameters from the CLPM and the alternative model, and use simulations to demonstrate the spurious results that may arise when using the CLPM to analyze data that include stable, trait-like individual differences. We also present a modeling strategy to avoid this pitfall and illustrate this using an empirical data set. The implications for both existing and future cross-lagged panel research are discussed.

No abstract

The random intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) is rapidly gaining popularity in psychology and related fields as a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to longitudinal data. It decomposes observed scores into within-unit dynamics and stable, between-unit differences. This paper discusses three extensions of the RI-CLPM that researchers may be interested in, but are unsure of how to accomplish: (a) including stable, person-level characteristics as predictors and/or outcomes; (b) specifying a multiple-group version; and (c) including multiple indicators. For each extension, we discuss which models need to be run in order to investigate underlying assumptions, and we demonstrate the various modeling options using a motivating example. We provide fully annotated code for lavaan (R-package) and Mplus on an accompanying website.

With the growing popularity of intensive longitudinal research, the modeling techniques and software options for such data are also expanding rapidly. Here we use dynamic multilevel modeling, as it is incorporated in the new dynamic structural equation modeling (DSEM) toolbox in Mplus, to analyze the affective data from the COGITO study. These data consist of two samples of over 100 individuals each who were measured for about 100 days. We use composite scores of positive and negative affect and apply a multilevel vector autoregressive model to allow for individual differences in means, autoregressions, and cross-lagged effects. Then we extend the model to include random residual variances and covariance, and finally we investigate whether prior depression affects later depression scores through the random effects of the daily diary measures. We end with discussing several urgent-but mostly unresolved-issues in the area of dynamic multilevel modeling.

Inferring reciprocal effects or causality between variables is a central aim of behavioral and psychological research. To address reciprocal effects, a variety of longitudinal models that include cross-lagged relations have been proposed in different contexts and disciplines. However, the relations between these cross-lagged models have not been systematically discussed in the literature. This lack of insight makes it difficult for researchers to select an appropriate model when analyzing longitudinal data, and some researchers do not even think about alternative cross-lagged models. The present research provides a unified framework that clarifies the conceptual and mathematical similarities and differences between these models. The unified framework shows that existing longitudinal models can be effectively classified based on whether the model posits unique factors and/or dynamic residuals, and what types of common factors are used to model changes. The latter is essential to understand how cross-lagged parameters are interpreted. We also present an example using empirical data to demonstrate that there is great risk of drawing different conclusions depending on the cross-lagged models used.

Technological advances have led to an increase in intensive longitudinal data and the statistical literature on modeling such data is rapidly expanding, as are software capabilities. Common methods in this area are related to time-series analysis, a framework that historically has received little exposure in psychology. There is a scarcity of psychology-based resources introducing the basic ideas of time-series analysis, especially for data sets featuring multiple people. We begin with basics of N ϭ 1 time-series analysis and build up to complex dynamic structural equation models available in the newest release of Mplus Version 8. The goal is to provide readers with a basic conceptual understanding of common models, template code, and result interpretation. We provide short descriptions of some advanced issues, but our main priority is to supply readers with a solid knowledge base so that the more advanced literature on the topic is more readily digestible to a larger group of researchers.

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.

By modeling variables over time it is possible to investigate the Granger-causal cross-lagged associations between variables. By comparing the standardized cross-lagged coefficients, the relative strength of these associations can be evaluated in order to determine important driving forces in the dynamic system. The aim of this study was twofold: first, to illustrate the added value of a multilevel multivariate autoregressive modeling approach for investigating these associations over more traditional techniques; and second, to discuss how the coefficients of the multilevel autoregressive model should be standardized for comparing the strength of the cross-lagged associations. The hierarchical structure of multilevel multivariate autoregressive models complicates standardization, because subject-based statistics or group-based statistics can be used to standardize the coefficients, and each method may result in different conclusions. We argue that in order to make a meaningful comparison of the strength of the cross-lagged associations, the coefficients should be standardized within persons. We further illustrate the bivariate multilevel autoregressive model and the standardization of the coefficients, and we show that disregarding individual differences in dynamics can prove misleading, by means of an empirical example on experienced competence and exhaustion in persons diagnosed with burnout. (PsycINFO Database Record