Psychological methods最新文献

Intensive longitudinal studies are becoming increasingly popular because of their potential for studying the individual dynamics of psychological processes. However, measures used in such studies are quite susceptible to measurement error due to the short lengths and therefore their psychometric properties, such as reliability, are of great concern. Most existing approaches for assessing reliability are not appropriate for the intensive longitudinal data (ILD) because of the conflation of inter- and intra-individual variations or the difficulty in handling interindividual differences. In addition, measurement models are always relegated or omitted in the ILD modeling approaches. Therefore, in this article, we introduce a two-level random dynamic measurement (2RDM) model for ILD, which takes into account measurement models for key variables of interest. Then we discuss how to derive the within-person and between-person reliabilities for items and scales in the context of the 2RDM model. A small simulation study is presented to illustrate the implementation of the 2RDM model and reliability estimation. An empirical study is then provided to demonstrate the application of the proposed approach for multidimensional scales, in which we calculated the within- and between-person reliabilities for both items and subscales of a short version of the Perceived Stress Scale and found large individual differences in the within-person reliabilities. We conclude by discussing the advantages and considerations of the proposed approach in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Several theoretical perspectives suggest that dyadic experiences are distinguished by patterns of behavioral change that emerge during interactions. Methods for examining change in behavior over time are well elaborated for the study of change along continuous dimensions. Extensions for charting increases and decreases in individuals' use of specific, categorically defined behaviors, however, are rarely invoked. Greater accessibility of Bayesian frameworks that facilitate formulation and estimation of the requisite models is opening new possibilities. This article provides a primer on how multinomial logistic growth models can be used to examine between-dyad differences in within-dyad behavioral change over the course of an interaction. We describe and illustrate how these models are implemented in the Bayesian framework using data from support conversations between strangers (N = 118 dyads) to examine (RQ1) how six types of listeners' and disclosers' behaviors change as support conversations unfold and (RQ2) how the disclosers' preconversation distress moderates the change in conversation behaviors. The primer concludes with a series of notes on (a) implications of modeling choices, (b) flexibility in modeling nonlinear change, (c) necessity for theory that specifies how and why change trajectories differ, and (d) how multinomial logistic growth models can help refine current theory about dyadic interaction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychology has seen an increase in the use of machine learning (ML) methods. In many applications, observations are classified into one of two groups (binary classification). Off-the-shelf classification algorithms assume that the costs of a misclassification (false positive or false negative) are equal. Because this is often not reasonable (e.g., in clinical psychology), cost-sensitive machine learning (CSL) methods can take different cost ratios into account. We present the mathematical foundations and introduce a taxonomy of the most commonly used CSL methods, before demonstrating their application and usefulness on psychological data, that is, the drug consumption data set (N = 1, 885) from the University of California Irvine ML Repository. In our example, all demonstrated CSL methods noticeably reduced mean misclassification costs compared to regular ML algorithms. We discuss the necessity for researchers to perform small benchmarks of CSL methods for their own practical application. Thus, our open materials provide R code, demonstrating how CSL methods can be applied within the mlr3 framework (https://osf.io/cvks7/). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Replication studies are essential for assessing the credibility of claims from original studies. A critical aspect of designing replication studies is determining their sample size; a too-small sample size may lead to inconclusive studies whereas a too-large sample size may waste resources that could be allocated better in other studies. Here, we show how Bayesian approaches can be used for tackling this problem. The Bayesian framework allows researchers to combine the original data and external knowledge in a design prior distribution for the underlying parameters. Based on a design prior, predictions about the replication data can be made, and the replication sample size can be chosen to ensure a sufficiently high probability of replication success. Replication success may be defined by Bayesian or non-Bayesian criteria and different criteria may also be combined to meet distinct stakeholders and enable conclusive inferences based on multiple analysis approaches. We investigate sample size determination in the normal-normal hierarchical model where analytical results are available and traditional sample size determination is a special case where the uncertainty on parameter values is not accounted for. We use data from a multisite replication project of social-behavioral experiments to illustrate how Bayesian approaches can help design informative and cost-effective replication studies. Our methods can be used through the R package BayesRepDesign. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Decades of published methodological research have shown the chi-square test of model fit performs inconsistently and unreliably as a determinant of structural equation model (SEM) fit. Likewise, SEM indices of model fit, such as comparative fit index (CFI) and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) also perform inconsistently and unreliably. Despite rather unreliable ways to statistically assess model fit, researchers commonly rely on these methods for lack of a suitable inferential alternative. Marcoulides and Yuan (2017) have proposed the first inferential test of SEM fit in many years: an equivalence test adaptation of the RMSEA and CFI indices (i.e., RMSEA_t and CFI_t). However, the ability of this equivalence testing approach to accurately judge acceptable and unacceptable model fit has not been empirically tested. This fully crossed Monte Carlo simulation evaluated the accuracy of equivalence testing combining many of the same independent variable (IV) conditions used in previous fit index simulation studies, including sample size (N = 100-1,000), model specification (correctly specified or misspecified), model type (confirmatory factor analysis [CFA], path analysis, or SEM), number of variables analyzed (low or high), data distribution (normal or skewed), and missing data (none, 10%, or 25%). Results show equivalence testing performs rather inconsistently and unreliably across IV conditions, with acceptable or unacceptable RMSEA_t and CFIt model fit index values often being contingent on complex interactions among conditions. Proportional z-tests and logistic regression analyses indicated that equivalence tests of model fit are problematic under multiple conditions, especially those where models are mildly misspecified. Recommendations for researchers are offered, but with the provision that they be used with caution until more research and development is available. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Meta-analyses in the psychological sciences typically examine moderators that may explain heterogeneity in effect sizes. One of the most commonly examined moderators is gender. Overall, tests of gender as a moderator are rarely significant, which may be because effects rarely differ substantially between men and women. While this may be true in some cases, we also suggest that the lack of significant findings may be attributable to the way in which gender is examined as a meta-analytic moderator, such that detecting moderating effects is very unlikely even when such effects are substantial in magnitude. More specifically, we suggest that lack of between-primary study variance in gender composition makes it exceedingly difficult to detect moderation. That is, because primary studies tend to have similar male-to-female ratios, there is very little variance in gender composition between primaries, making it nearly impossible to detect between-study differences in the relationship of interest as a function of gender. In the present article, we report results from two studies: (a) a meta-meta-analysis in which we demonstrate the magnitude of this problem by computing the between-study variance in gender composition across 286 meta-analytic moderation tests from 50 meta-analyses, and (b) a Monte Carlo simulation study in which we show that this lack of variance results in near-zero moderator effects even when male-female differences in correlations are quite large. Our simulations are also used to show the value of single-gender studies for detecting moderating effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).