Growth Curve Modeling to Studying Change: A Comparison of Approaches Using Longitudinal Dyadic Data With Distinguishable Dyads

REFERENCES

• Atkins, D. C. (2005). Using multilevel models to analyze couple and family treatment data: Basic and advanced issues. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 98–110. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.98
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baltes, B. P., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1979). History and rationale of longitudinal research. In J. R. Nesselroade & B. P. Baltes (Eds.), Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and development (pp. 1–39). London, UK: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bamia, C., White, I. R., & Kenward, M. G. (2013). Some consequences of assuming simple patterns for the treatment effect over time in a linear mixed model. Statistics in Medicine, 32, 2585–2594. doi:10.1002/sim.5707
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, D. J. (2003). Estimating multilevel linear models as structural equation models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 28, 135–167. doi:10.3102/10769986028002135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). Accounting for statistical dependency in longitudinal data on dyads. In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 285–298). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A. (1998). Structural equation models. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Card, N. A., Selig, J. P., & Little, T. (Eds.). (2011). Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Du, H., & Wang, L. (2016). The impact of the number of dyads on estimation of dyadic data analysis using multilevel modeling. Methodology, 12(1), 21–31. doi:10.1027/1614-2241/a000105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer, E., & McArdle, J. J. (2003). Alternative structural models for multivariate data analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 493–524. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1004_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer, E., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2003). Modeling affective processes in dyadic relations via dynamic factor analysis. Emotion, 3, 344–360. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.4.344
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzmaurice, G. M., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (2011). Applied longitudinal analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2012). Dyadic data analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Grimm, K. J., Kuhl, A. P., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Measurement models, estimation, and the study of change. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 504–517. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.797837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm, K. J., Steele, J. S., Ram, N., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2013). Exploratory latent growth models in the structural equation modeling framework. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 568–591. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.824775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedeker, D., & Gibbons, R. D. (2006). Longitudinal data analysis (Vol. 451). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hertzog, C., Lindenberger, U., Ghisletta, P., & Oertzen, T. V. (2006). On the power of multivariate latent growth curve models to detect correlated change. Psychological Methods, 11, 244–252. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.3.244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kashy, D. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2008). Comparing MLM and SEM approaches to analyzing developmental dyadic data: Growth curve models of hostility in families. In N. Card, J. Selig, & T. Little (Eds.), Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences (pp. 165–190). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., Burt, S. A., & McGue, M. (2008). Growth curve models for indistingishable dyads using multilevel modeling and structural equation modeling: The case of adolescent twins' conflict with their mothers. Developmental Psychology, 44, 316–329.
   Google Scholar
• Ke, Z., & Wang, L. (2015). Detecting individual differences in change: Methods and comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling, 22, 382–400. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.936096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view. Developmental Psychology, 25, 343–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laursen, B. P., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of developmental research methods. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Ledermann, T., Macho, S., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 595–612. doi:10.1080/10705511.2011.607099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13–22. doi:10.1093/biomet/73.1.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, S., Rovine, M. J., & Molenaar, P. C. (2012). Selecting a linear mixed model for longitudinal data: Repeated measures analysis of variance, covariance pattern model, and growth curve approaches. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 15–30. doi:10.1037/a0026971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251–255.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, K. S., & Sayer, A. G. (2005). Longitudinal dyad models in family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1048–1060. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00193.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCallum, R. C., Kim, C., Malarkey, W. B., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1997). Studying multivariate change using multilevel models and latent curve models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 215–253. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3203_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163612
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McArdle, J. J., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2014). Longitudinal data analysis using structural equation models. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Meredith, W., & Tisak, J. (1990). Latent curve analysis. Psychometrika, 55, 107–122. doi:10.1007/BF02294746
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Newsom, J. T. (2002). A multilevel structural equation model for dyadic data. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 431–447. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0903_7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan, J. X., & Fang, K. T. (2012). Growth curve models and statistical diagnostics. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Peugh, J. M., DiLillo, D., & Panuzio, J. (2013). Analyzing mixed-dyadic data using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 314–337. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.769395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Planalp, E. M., Braungart-Rieker, J. M., Lickenbrock, D. M., & Zentall, S. (2013). Trajectories of parenting during infancy: The role of infant temperament and marital adjustment for mothers and fathers. Infancy, 18(Suppl. 1), E16–E45. doi:10.1111/infa.12021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rast, P., & Hofer, S. M. (2014). Longitudinal design considerations to optimize power to detect variances and covariances among rates of change: Simulation results based on actual longitudinal studies. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 133–154. doi:10.1037/a0034524
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SAS Institute. (2011). SAS® 9.3 system options: Reference (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Satorra, A., & Saris, W. E. (1985). Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 83–90.
   Google Scholar
• Sayer, A. G., & Klute, M. M. (2005). Analyzing couples and families: Multilevel methods. In V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 289–313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Methods for studying change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tong, X., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Diagnostics of robust growth curve modeling using Student’s t distribution. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 493–518. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.692614
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendorf, C. A. (2002). Comparisons of structural equation modeling and hierarchical linear modeling approaches to couples’ data. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 126–140. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittaker, T. A., Beretvas, S. N., & Falbo, T. (2014). Dyadic curve-of-factors model: An introduction and illustration of a model for longitudinal nonexchangeable dyadic data. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 303–317. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.882695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar