Multivariate Behavioral Research最新文献

There has been an increasing call to model multivariate time series data with measurement error. The combination of latent factors with a vector autoregressive (VAR) model leads to the dynamic factor model (DFM), in which dynamic relations are derived within factor series, among factors and observed time series, or both. However, a few limitations exist in the current DFM representatives and estimation: (1) the dynamic component contains either directed or undirected contemporaneous relations, but not both, (2) selecting the optimal model in exploratory DFM is a challenge, (3) the consequences of structural misspecifications from model selection is barely studied. Our paper serves to advance DFM with a hybrid VAR representations and the utilization of LASSO regularization to select dynamic implied instrumental variable, two-stage least squares (MIIV-2SLS) estimation. Our proposed method highlights the flexibility in modeling the directions of dynamic relations with a robust estimation. We aim to offer researchers guidance on model selection and estimation in person-centered dynamic assessments.

We present the R package galamm, whose goal is to provide common ground between structural equation modeling and mixed effect models. It supports estimation of models with an arbitrary number of crossed or nested random effects, smoothing splines, mixed response types, factor structures, heteroscedastic residuals, and data missing at random. Implementation using sparse matrix methods and automatic differentiation ensures computational efficiency. We here briefly present the implemented methodology, give an overview of the package and an example demonstrating its use.

While Bayesian methodology is increasingly favored in behavioral research for its clear probabilistic inference and model structure, its widespread acceptance as a standard meta-analysis approach remains limited. Although some conventional Bayesian hierarchical models are frequently used for analysis, their performance has not been thoroughly examined. This study evaluates two commonly used Bayesian models for meta-analysis of standardized mean difference and identifies significant issues with these models. In response, we introduce a new Bayesian model equipped with novel features that address existing model concerns and a broader limitation of the current Bayesian meta-analysis. Furthermore, we introduce a simple computational approach to construct simultaneous credible intervals for the summary effect and between-study heterogeneity, based on their joint posterior samples. This fully captures the joint uncertainty in these parameters, a task that is challenging or impractical with frequentist models. Through simulation studies rooted in a joint Bayesian/frequentist paradigm, we compare our model's performance against existing ones under conditions that mirror realistic research scenarios. The results reveal that our new model outperforms others and shows enhanced statistical properties. We also demonstrate the practicality of our models using real-world examples, highlighting how our approach strengthens the robustness of inferences regarding the summary effect.

Psychologists leverage longitudinal designs to examine the causal effects of a focal predictor (i.e., treatment or exposure) over time. But causal inference of naturally observed time-varying treatments is complicated by treatment-dependent confounding in which earlier treatments affect confounders of later treatments. In this tutorial article, we introduce psychologists to an established solution to this problem from the causal inference literature: the parametric g-computation formula. We explain why the g-formula is effective at handling treatment-dependent confounding. We demonstrate that the parametric g-formula is conceptually intuitive, easy to implement, and well-suited for psychological research. We first clarify that the parametric g-formula essentially utilizes a series of statistical models to estimate the joint distribution of all post-treatment variables. These statistical models can be readily specified as standard multiple linear regression functions. We leverage this insight to implement the parametric g-formula using lavaan, a widely adopted R package for structural equation modeling. Moreover, we describe how the parametric g-formula may be used to estimate a marginal structural model whose causal parameters parsimoniously encode time-varying treatment effects. We hope this accessible introduction to the parametric g-formula will equip psychologists with an analytic tool to address their causal inquiries using longitudinal data.

When examining whether two continuous variables are associated, tests based on Pearson's, Kendall's, and Spearman's correlation coefficients are typically used. This paper explores modern nonparametric independence tests as an alternative, which, unlike traditional tests, have the ability to potentially detect any type of relationship. In addition to existing modern nonparametric independence tests, we developed and considered two novel variants of existing tests, most notably the Heller-Heller-Gorfine-Pearson (HHG-Pearson) test. We conducted a simulation study to compare traditional independence tests, such as Pearson's correlation, and the modern nonparametric independence tests in situations commonly encountered in psychological research. As expected, no test had the highest power across all relationships. However, the distance correlation and the HHG-Pearson tests were found to have substantially greater power than all traditional tests for many relationships and only slightly less power in the worst case. A similar pattern was found in favor of the HHG-Pearson test compared to the distance correlation test. However, given that distance correlation performed better for linear relationships and is more widely accepted, we suggest considering its use in place or additional to traditional methods when there is no prior knowledge of the relationship type, as is often the case in psychological research.

Linear mixed-effects models have been increasingly used to analyze dependent data in psychological research. Despite their many advantages over ANOVA, critical issues in their analyses remain. Due to increasing random effects and model complexity, estimation computation is demanding, and convergence becomes challenging. Applied users need help choosing appropriate methods to estimate random effects. The present Monte Carlo simulation study investigated the impacts when the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and Bayesian estimation models were misspecified in the estimation. We also compared the performance of Akaike information criterion (AIC) and deviance information criterion (DIC) in model selection. Results showed that models neglecting the existing random effects had inflated Type I errors, unacceptable coverage, and inaccurate R-squared measures of fixed and random effects variation. Furthermore, models with redundant random effects had convergence problems, lower statistical power, and inaccurate R-squared measures for Bayesian estimation. The convergence problem is more severe for REML, while reduced power and inaccurate R-squared measures were more severe for Bayesian estimation. Notably, DIC was better than AIC in identifying the true models (especially for models including person random intercept only), improving convergence rates, and providing more accurate effect size estimates, despite AIC having higher power than DIC with 10 items and the most complicated true model.

Two research streams on responses to Likert-type items have been developing in parallel: (a) unfolding models and (b) individual response styles (RSs). To accurately understand Likert-type item responding, it is vital to parse unfolding responses from RSs. Therefore, we propose the Unfolding Item Response Tree (UIRTree) model. First, we conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study to examine the performance of the UIRTree model compared to three other models - Samejima's Graded Response Model, Generalized Graded Unfolding Model, and Dominance Item Response Tree model, for Likert-type responses. Results showed that when data followed an unfolding response process and contained RSs, AIC was able to select the UIRTree model, while BIC was biased toward the DIRTree model in many conditions. In addition, model parameters in the UIRTree model could be accurately recovered under realistic conditions, and mis-specifying item response process or wrongly ignoring RSs was detrimental to the estimation of key parameters. Then, we used datasets from empirical studies to show that the UIRTree model could fit personality datasets well and produced more reasonable parameter estimates compared to competing models. A strong presence of RS(s) was also revealed by the UIRTree model. Finally, we provided examples with R code for UIRTree model estimation to facilitate the modeling of responses to Likert-type items in future studies.

This special issue is a collection of papers inspired by Dr. Molenaar's work and innovations - a tribute to his passion for advancing science and his ability to ignite a spark of creativity and innovation in multiple generations of scientists. Following Dr. Molenaar's creative breadth, the papers address a wide variety of topics - sharing of new methodological developments, ideas, and findings in idiographic science, study of intraindividual variation, behavioral genetics, model inference/identification/selection, and more.

A popular measure of model fit in structural equation modeling (SEM) is the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) fit index. Equivalence testing has been used to evaluate model fit in structural equation modeling (SEM) but has yet to be applied to SRMR. Accordingly, the present study proposed equivalence-testing based fit tests for the SRMR (ESRMR). Several variations of ESRMR were introduced, incorporating different equivalence bounds and methods of computing confidence intervals. A Monte Carlo simulation study compared these novel tests with traditional methods for evaluating model fit. The results demonstrated that certain ESRMR tests based on an analytic computation of the confidence interval correctly reject poor-fitting models and are well-powered for detecting good-fitting models. We also present an illustrative example with real data to demonstrate how ESRMR may be incorporated into model fit evaluation and reporting. Our recommendation is that ESRMR tests be presented in addition to descriptive fit indices for model fit reporting in SEM.

The social relations model (SRM) is the standard approach for analyzing dyadic data stemming from round-robin designs. The model can be used to estimate correlation-coefficients that reflect the overall reciprocity or accuracy of judgements for individual and dyads on the sample- or population level. Within the social relations structural equation modeling framework and on the statistical grounding of stochastic measurement and classical test theory, we show how the multiple indicator SRM can be modified to capture inter-individual and inter-dyadic differences in reciprocal engagement or inter-individual differences in reciprocal accuracy. All models are illustrated on an open-access round-robin data set containing measures of mimicry, liking, and meta-liking (the belief to be liked). Results suggest that people who engage more strongly in reciprocal mimicry are liked more after an interaction with someone and that overestimating one's own popularity is strongly associated with being liked less. Further applications, advantages and limitations of the models are discussed.