A Note on the Occurrence of the Illusory Between-Person Component in the Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model

References

• Andersen, H. K. (2022). Equivalent approaches to dealing with unobserved heterogeneity in cross-lagged panel models? Investigating the benefits and drawbacks of the latent curve model with structured residuals and the random intercept cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 27, 730–751. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000285
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asendorpf, J. B. (2021). Modeling developmental processes. In J. R. Rauthmann (Ed.), Handbook of personality dynamics and processes (pp. 815–835). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813995-0.00031-5
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, D. H., Hübner, N., Zitzmann, S., Hecht, M., & Murayama, K. (2023). Illusory traits: Wrong but sometimes useful. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rz8h4
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, D. H., Oh, Y., Farkas, G., Morgan, P., & Hillemeier, M. (2020). Reciprocal effects of reading and mathematics? Beyond the cross-lagged panel model. Developmental Psychology, 56, 912–921. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000902
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boos, D. D., & Stefanski, L. A. (2013). Essential statistical inference: Theory and methods. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4818-1
   Google Scholar
• Falkenström, F., Solomonov, N., & Rubel, J. (2023). To detrend, or not to detrend, that is the question? The effects of detrending on cross-lagged effects in panel models. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamaker, E. L. (2023). The within-between dispute in cross-lagged panel research and how to move forward. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20, 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hecht, M., & Zitzmann, S. (2020). A computationally more efficient Bayesian approach for estimating continuous-time models. Structural Equation Modeling, 27, 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1719107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hori, K., & Miyazaki, Y. (2023). Latent curve detrending for disaggregating between-person effect and within-person effect. Structural Equation Modeling, 30, 192–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2069113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G., Olsson, U. H., & Wallentin, F. Y. (2016). Multivariate analysis with LISREL. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33153-9
   Google Scholar
• Kuiper, R. M., & Ryan, O. (2018). Drawing conclusions from cross-lagged relationships: Re-considering the role of the time-interval. Structural Equation Modeling, 25, 809–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1431046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohmann, J. F., Zitzmann, S., & Hecht, M. (2024). Studying between-subject differences in trends and dynamics: Introducing the random coefficients continuous-time latent curve model with structured residuals. Structural Equation Modeling, 31, 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2023.2192889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucas, R. E. (2022). It’s time to abandon the cross-lagged panel model. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pkec7
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, R. E. (2023). Why the cross-lagged panel model is almost never the right choice. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231158378
   Google Scholar
• Lüdtke, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2021). A critique of the random intercept cross-lagged panel model. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6f85c
   Google Scholar
• Lüdtke, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2022). A comparison of different approaches for estimating cross-lagged effects from a causal inference perspective. Structural Equation Modeling, 29, 888–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2065278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüdtke, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2023). ANCOVA versus change score for the analysis of two-wave data. The Journal of Experimental Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2023.2246187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., & Ulitzsch, E. (2023). A Bayesian approach to estimating reciprocal effects with the bivariate STARTS model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 58, 560–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2022.2039585
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnus, J. R., & Neudecker, H. (2019). Matrix differential calculus with applications in statistics and econometrics. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119541219
   Google Scholar
• Millimet, D., & Bellemare, M. F. (2023). Fixed effects and causal inference. SSRN Electronic Journal, 16202. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4467963
   Google Scholar
• Mulder, J. D., & Hamaker, E. L. (2023). The RI-CLPM & extensions. Frequently asked questions. accessed on 23 August 2023. https://jeroendmulder.github.io/RI-CLPM/faq.html
   Google Scholar
• Mulder, J. D., Usami, S., & Hamaker, E. L. (2024). Joint effects in cross-lagged panel research using structural nested mean models. Structural Equation Modeling. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2024.2355579
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mundlak, Y. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica, 46, 69–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murayama, K., & Gfrörer, T. (2022). Thinking clearly about time-invariant confounders in cross-lagged panel models: A guide for choosing a statistical model from a causal inference perspective. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bt9xr
   Google Scholar
• Orth, U., Clark, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2021). Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120, 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000358
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oud, J. H. (2002). Continuous time modeling of the cross-lagged panel design. Kwantitatieve Methoden, 69, 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmack, U. (2020). Why most cross-lagged models are false. Retrieved August 23, 2023, from https://replicationindex.com/2020/08/22/cross-lagged/
   Google Scholar
• Schuurman, N. K. (2023). A "within/between problem” primer: About (not) separating within-person variance and between-person variance in psychology. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7zgkx
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, K., Nilsonne, G., Melin, B., & Ingre, M. (2023). Uncertain inference in random intercept cross-lagged panel models: An example involving need for cognition and anxiety and depression symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 201, 111925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111925
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Usami, S., Murayama, K., & Hamaker, E. L. (2019). A unified framework of longitudinal models to examine reciprocal relations. Psychological Methods, 24, 637–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voelkle, M. C., Oud, J. H., Davidov, E., & Schmidt, P. (2012). An SEM approach to continuous time modeling of panel data: Relating authoritarianism and anomia. Psychological Methods, 17, 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027543
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar