Kevin J Grimm, Jonathan Helm, Danielle Rodgers, Holly O'Rourke
{"title":"分析交叉滞后效应:不同交叉滞后建模方法的比较。","authors":"Kevin J Grimm, Jonathan Helm, Danielle Rodgers, Holly O'Rourke","doi":"10.1002/cad.20401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Developmental researchers often have research questions about cross-lag effects-the effect of one variable predicting a second variable at a subsequent time point. The cross-lag panel model (CLPM) is often fit to longitudinal panel data to examine cross-lag effects; however, its utility has recently been called into question because of its inability to distinguish between-person effects from within-person effects. This has led to alternative forms of the CLPM to be proposed to address these limitations, including the random-intercept CLPM and the latent curve model with structured residuals. We describe these models focusing on the interpretation of their model parameters, and apply them to examine cross-lag associations between reading and mathematics. The results from the various models suggest reading and mathematics are reciprocally related; however, the strength of these lagged associations was model dependent. We highlight the strengths and limitations of each approach and make recommendations regarding modeling choice.</p>","PeriodicalId":47745,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/cad.20401","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyzing cross-lag effects: A comparison of different cross-lag modeling approaches.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin J Grimm, Jonathan Helm, Danielle Rodgers, Holly O'Rourke\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cad.20401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Developmental researchers often have research questions about cross-lag effects-the effect of one variable predicting a second variable at a subsequent time point. The cross-lag panel model (CLPM) is often fit to longitudinal panel data to examine cross-lag effects; however, its utility has recently been called into question because of its inability to distinguish between-person effects from within-person effects. This has led to alternative forms of the CLPM to be proposed to address these limitations, including the random-intercept CLPM and the latent curve model with structured residuals. We describe these models focusing on the interpretation of their model parameters, and apply them to examine cross-lag associations between reading and mathematics. The results from the various models suggest reading and mathematics are reciprocally related; however, the strength of these lagged associations was model dependent. We highlight the strengths and limitations of each approach and make recommendations regarding modeling choice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47745,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/cad.20401\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20401\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/3/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20401","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Analyzing cross-lag effects: A comparison of different cross-lag modeling approaches.
Developmental researchers often have research questions about cross-lag effects-the effect of one variable predicting a second variable at a subsequent time point. The cross-lag panel model (CLPM) is often fit to longitudinal panel data to examine cross-lag effects; however, its utility has recently been called into question because of its inability to distinguish between-person effects from within-person effects. This has led to alternative forms of the CLPM to be proposed to address these limitations, including the random-intercept CLPM and the latent curve model with structured residuals. We describe these models focusing on the interpretation of their model parameters, and apply them to examine cross-lag associations between reading and mathematics. The results from the various models suggest reading and mathematics are reciprocally related; however, the strength of these lagged associations was model dependent. We highlight the strengths and limitations of each approach and make recommendations regarding modeling choice.
期刊介绍:
The mission of New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development is to provide scientific and scholarly presentations on cutting edge issues and concepts in the field of child and adolescent development. Each issue focuses on a specific new direction or research topic, and is peer reviewed by experts on that topic. Any topic in the domain of child and adolescent development can be the focus of an issue. Topics can include social, cognitive, educational, emotional, biological, neuroscience, health, demographic, economical, and socio-cultural issues that bear on children and youth, as well as issues in research methodology and other domains. Topics that bridge across areas are encouraged, as well as those that are international in focus or deal with under-represented groups. The readership for the journal is primarily students, researchers, scholars, and social servants from fields such as psychology, sociology, education, social work, anthropology, neuroscience, and health. We welcome scholars with diverse methodological and epistemological orientations.