用于估计个体水平变化的最佳两时间点纵向模型:渐近的见解和实际意义

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
Andreas M. Brandmaier , Ulman Lindenberger , Ethan M. McCormick
{"title":"用于估计个体水平变化的最佳两时间点纵向模型:渐近的见解和实际意义","authors":"Andreas M. Brandmaier ,&nbsp;Ulman Lindenberger ,&nbsp;Ethan M. McCormick","doi":"10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Based on findings from a simulation study, Parsons and McCormick (2024) argued that growth models with exactly two time points are poorly-suited to model individual differences in linear slopes in developmental studies. Their argument is based on an empirical investigation of the increase in precision to measure individual differences in linear slopes if studies are progressively extended by adding an extra measurement occasion after one unit of time (e.g., year) has passed. They concluded that two-time point models are inadequate to reliably model change at the individual level and that these models should focus on group-level effects. Here, we show that these limitations can be addressed by deconfounding the influence of study duration and the influence of adding an extra measurement occasion on precision to estimate individual differences in linear slopes. We use asymptotic results to gauge and compare precision of linear change models representing different study designs, and show that it is primarily the longer time span that increases precision, not the extra waves. Further, we show how the asymptotic results can be used to also consider irregularly spaced intervals as well as planned and unplanned missing data. In conclusion, we like to stress that true linear change can indeed be captured well with only two time points if careful study design planning is applied before running a study.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49083,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience","volume":"70 ","pages":"Article 101450"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal two-time point longitudinal models for estimating individual-level change: Asymptotic insights and practical implications\",\"authors\":\"Andreas M. Brandmaier ,&nbsp;Ulman Lindenberger ,&nbsp;Ethan M. McCormick\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101450\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Based on findings from a simulation study, Parsons and McCormick (2024) argued that growth models with exactly two time points are poorly-suited to model individual differences in linear slopes in developmental studies. Their argument is based on an empirical investigation of the increase in precision to measure individual differences in linear slopes if studies are progressively extended by adding an extra measurement occasion after one unit of time (e.g., year) has passed. They concluded that two-time point models are inadequate to reliably model change at the individual level and that these models should focus on group-level effects. Here, we show that these limitations can be addressed by deconfounding the influence of study duration and the influence of adding an extra measurement occasion on precision to estimate individual differences in linear slopes. We use asymptotic results to gauge and compare precision of linear change models representing different study designs, and show that it is primarily the longer time span that increases precision, not the extra waves. Further, we show how the asymptotic results can be used to also consider irregularly spaced intervals as well as planned and unplanned missing data. In conclusion, we like to stress that true linear change can indeed be captured well with only two time points if careful study design planning is applied before running a study.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"70 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101450\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929324001117\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929324001117","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据模拟研究的结果,Parsons 和 McCormick(2024 年)认为,有两个时间点的成长模型不适合用来模拟发展研究中线性斜率的个体差异。他们的论点基于一项实证调查,即如果在一个时间单位(如一年)之后增加一个额外的测量场合,从而逐步扩大研究范围,那么线性斜率个体差异的测量精度就会提高。他们的结论是,两时间点模型不足以可靠地模拟个体层面的变化,这些模型应侧重于群体层面的效应。在这里,我们证明了这些局限性可以通过消除研究持续时间的影响和增加额外测量场合对精确度的影响来解决,从而估计线性斜率的个体差异。我们使用渐近结果来衡量和比较代表不同研究设计的线性变化模型的精确度,并表明主要是较长的时间跨度提高了精确度,而不是额外的波次。此外,我们还展示了如何利用渐近结果来考虑不规则间隔以及计划内和计划外的缺失数据。总之,我们要强调的是,如果在开展研究之前进行了仔细的研究设计规划,那么只需两个时间点就能很好地捕捉到真正的线性变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimal two-time point longitudinal models for estimating individual-level change: Asymptotic insights and practical implications
Based on findings from a simulation study, Parsons and McCormick (2024) argued that growth models with exactly two time points are poorly-suited to model individual differences in linear slopes in developmental studies. Their argument is based on an empirical investigation of the increase in precision to measure individual differences in linear slopes if studies are progressively extended by adding an extra measurement occasion after one unit of time (e.g., year) has passed. They concluded that two-time point models are inadequate to reliably model change at the individual level and that these models should focus on group-level effects. Here, we show that these limitations can be addressed by deconfounding the influence of study duration and the influence of adding an extra measurement occasion on precision to estimate individual differences in linear slopes. We use asymptotic results to gauge and compare precision of linear change models representing different study designs, and show that it is primarily the longer time span that increases precision, not the extra waves. Further, we show how the asymptotic results can be used to also consider irregularly spaced intervals as well as planned and unplanned missing data. In conclusion, we like to stress that true linear change can indeed be captured well with only two time points if careful study design planning is applied before running a study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
10.60%
发文量
124
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes theoretical and research papers on cognitive brain development, from infancy through childhood and adolescence and into adulthood. It covers neurocognitive development and neurocognitive processing in both typical and atypical development, including social and affective aspects. Appropriate methodologies for the journal include, but are not limited to, functional neuroimaging (fMRI and MEG), electrophysiology (EEG and ERP), NIRS and transcranial magnetic stimulation, as well as other basic neuroscience approaches using cellular and animal models that directly address cognitive brain development, patient studies, case studies, post-mortem studies and pharmacological studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信