Inconclusive effects between executive functions and symptoms of psychiatric disorders in random-intercept cross-lagged panel models: a simulated reanalysis and comment on Halse et al. (2022).
{"title":"Inconclusive effects between executive functions and symptoms of psychiatric disorders in random-intercept cross-lagged panel models: a simulated reanalysis and comment on Halse et al. (2022).","authors":"Kimmo Sorjonen, Bo Melin","doi":"10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1500200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In a recent study of Norwegian children (<i>N</i> = 874), Halse et al. used random-intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPM) and concluded that their findings supported the assumption that deficiencies in executive functions and psychopathology are both a cause and a consequence of the other. However, it is known that RI-CLPM can give biased results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reanalyzed data simulated to resemble the data used by Halse et al. with several complementary models, e.g., latent change score models (LCSM).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analyzed models indicated contradictory simultaneous increasing and decreasing effects between executive deficits and symptoms of psychopathology.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present contradictory findings suggested that prospective effects between executive deficits and symptoms of psychopathology may have been spurious rather than truly increasing. Consequently, conclusions by Halse et al. appear to have been premature. It is important for researchers to bear in mind that correlations, including cross-lagged effects in RI-CLPM, do not prove causality. Careful interpretation of RI-CLPM results is of utmost importance in, for example, research in clinical and developmental psychology. We recommend researchers to use, as we did here, triangulation to scrutinize findings from analyses of observational data.</p>","PeriodicalId":12525,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1500200"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11907166/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1500200","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In a recent study of Norwegian children (N = 874), Halse et al. used random-intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPM) and concluded that their findings supported the assumption that deficiencies in executive functions and psychopathology are both a cause and a consequence of the other. However, it is known that RI-CLPM can give biased results.
Methods: We reanalyzed data simulated to resemble the data used by Halse et al. with several complementary models, e.g., latent change score models (LCSM).
Results: The analyzed models indicated contradictory simultaneous increasing and decreasing effects between executive deficits and symptoms of psychopathology.
Conclusion: The present contradictory findings suggested that prospective effects between executive deficits and symptoms of psychopathology may have been spurious rather than truly increasing. Consequently, conclusions by Halse et al. appear to have been premature. It is important for researchers to bear in mind that correlations, including cross-lagged effects in RI-CLPM, do not prove causality. Careful interpretation of RI-CLPM results is of utmost importance in, for example, research in clinical and developmental psychology. We recommend researchers to use, as we did here, triangulation to scrutinize findings from analyses of observational data.
期刊介绍：
Frontiers in Psychology is the largest journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across the psychological sciences, from clinical research to cognitive science, from perception to consciousness, from imaging studies to human factors, and from animal cognition to social psychology. Field Chief Editor Axel Cleeremans at the Free University of Brussels is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal publishes the best research across the entire field of psychology. Today, psychological science is becoming increasingly important at all levels of society, from the treatment of clinical disorders to our basic understanding of how the mind works. It is highly interdisciplinary, borrowing questions from philosophy, methods from neuroscience and insights from clinical practice - all in the goal of furthering our grasp of human nature and society, as well as our ability to develop new intervention methods.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
