Multivariate Behavioral Research最新文献

Work surrounding the replicability and generalizability of network models has increased in recent years, prompting debate on whether network properties can be expected to be consistent across samples. To date, certain methodological practices may have contributed to observed inconsistencies, including use of single-item indicators and non-identical measurement tools. The current study used a resampling approach to disentangle the effects of sampling variability from scale variability when assessing network replicability in empirical data. Additionally, we explored whether consistencies in network characteristics were improved when more items were aggregated to estimate node scores, which we hypothesized should yield more representative measures of latent constructs. Overall, using different scales produced more variability in network properties than using different samples, but these discrepancies were markedly reduced with larger samples and greater node aggregation. Findings underscored the impact of aggregating items when estimating nodes: Multi-item indicators led to denser networks, higher network sensitivity, greater estimates of global strength, and greater levels of consistency in network properties (e.g., edge weights, centrality scores). Taken together, variability in network properties across samples may arise from poor measurement conditions; additionally, variability may reflect properties of the true network model and/or the measurement instrument. All data and syntax are openly available online (https://osf.io/m37q2/).

Among the most important merits of modern missing data techniques such as multiple imputation (MI) and full-information maximum likelihood estimation is the possibility to include additional information about the missingness process via auxiliary variables. During the past decade, the choice of auxiliary variables has been investigated under a variety of different conditions and more recent research points to the potentially biasing effect of certain auxiliary variables, particularly colliders (Thoemmes & Rose, 2014). In this article, we further extend biasing mechanisms of certain auxiliary variables considered in previous research and thereby focus on their effects on individual diagnosis based on norming, in which the whole distribution of a variable is of interest rather than average coefficients (e.g., means). For this, we first provide the theoretical underpinnings of the mechanisms under study and then provide two focused simulations that (i) directly expand on the collider scenario in Thoemmes and Rose (2014, appendix A) by considering outcomes that are relevant to norming and (ii) extend the scenarios under consideration by instrumental variable mechanisms. We illustrate the bias mechanisms for two different norming approaches and exemplify the procedures by means of an empirical example. We end by discussing limitations and implications of our research.

Despite previous warnings against the use of the difference-in-coefficients method for estimating the indirect effect when the outcome in the mediation model is binary, the difference-in-coefficients method remains readily used in a variety of fields. The continued use of this method is presumably because of the lack of awareness that this method conflates the indirect effect estimate and non-collapsibility. In this paper, we aim to demonstrate the problems associated with the difference-in-coefficients method for estimating indirect effects for mediation models with binary outcomes. We provide a formula that decomposes the difference-in-coefficients estimate into (1) an estimate of non-collapsibility, and (2) an indirect effect estimate. We use a simulation study and an empirical data example to illustrate the impact of non-collapsibility on the difference-in-coefficients estimate of the indirect effect. Further, we demonstrate the application of several alternative methods for estimating the indirect effect, including the product-of-coefficients method and regression-based causal mediation analysis. The results emphasize the importance of choosing a method for estimating the indirect effect that is not affected by non-collapsibility.

Random-intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPMs) are increasingly used to investigate research questions focusing on how one variable at one time point affects another variable at the subsequent time point. Due to the implied temporal sequence of events in such research designs, interpretations of RI-CLPMs primarily focus on longitudinal cross-lagged paths while disregarding concurrent associations and modeling these only as residual covariances. However, this may cause biased cross-lagged effects. This may be especially so when data collected at the same time point refers to different reference timeframes, creating a temporal sequence of events for constructs measured concurrently. To examine this issue, we conducted a series of empirical analyses in which the impact of modeling or not modeling of directional within-time point associations may impact inferences drawn from RI-CLPMs using data from the longitudinal z-proso study. Results highlight that not considering directional concurrent effects may lead to biased cross-lagged effects. Thus, it is essential to carefully consider potential directional concurrent effects when choosing models to analyze directional associations between variables over time. If temporal sequences of concurrent effects cannot be clearly established, testing multiple models and drawing conclusions based on the robustness of effects across all models is recommended.

In this paper, we propose a Bayesian causal mediation approach to the analysis of experimental data when both the outcome and the mediator are measured through structured questionnaires based on Likert-scaled inquiries. Our estimation strategy builds upon the error-in-variables literature and, specifically, it leverages Item Response Theory to explicitly model the observed surrogate mediator and outcome measures. We employ their elicited latent counterparts in a simple g-computation algorithm, where we exploit the fundamental identifying assumptions of causal mediation analysis to impute all the relevant counterfactuals and estimate the causal parameters of interest. We finally devise a sensitivity analysis procedure to test the robustness of the proposed methods to the restrictive requirement of mediator's conditional ignorability. We demonstrate the functioning of our proposed methodology through an empirical application using survey data from an online experiment on food purchasing intentions and the effect of different labeling regimes.

To understand psychological data, it is crucial to examine the structure and dimensions of variables. In this study, we examined alternative estimation algorithms to the conventional GLASSO-based exploratory graph analysis (EGA) in network psychometric models to assess the dimensionality structure of the data. The study applied Bayesian conjugate or Jeffreys' priors to estimate the graphical structure and then used the Louvain community detection algorithm to partition and identify groups of nodes, which allowed the detection of the multi- and unidimensional factor structures. Monte Carlo simulations suggested that the two alternative Bayesian estimation algorithms had comparable or better performance when compared with the GLASSO-based EGA and conventional parallel analysis (PA). When estimating the multidimensional factor structure, the analytically based method (i.e., EGA.analytical) showed the best balance between accuracy and mean biased/absolute errors, with the highest accuracy tied with EGA but with the smallest errors. The sampling-based approach (EGA.sampling) yielded higher accuracy and smaller errors than PA; lower accuracy but also lower errors than EGA. Techniques from the two algorithms had more stable performance than EGA and PA across different data conditions. When estimating the unidimensional structure, the PA technique performed the best, followed closely by EGA, and then EGA.analytical and EGA.sampling. Furthermore, the study explored four full Bayesian techniques to assess dimensionality in network psychometrics. The results demonstrated superior performance when using Bayesian hypothesis testing or deriving posterior samples of graph structures under small sample sizes. The study recommends using the EGA.analytical technique as an alternative tool for assessing dimensionality and advocates for the usefulness of the EGA.sampling method as a valuable alternate technique. The findings also indicated encouraging results for extending the regularization-based network modeling EGA method to the Bayesian framework and discussed future directions in this line of work. The study illustrated the practical application of the techniques to two empirical examples in R.

Researchers simulating covariance structure models sometimes add model error to their data to produce model misfit. Presently, the most popular methods for generating error-perturbed data are those by Tucker, Koopman, and Linn (TKL), Cudeck and Browne (CB), and Wu and Browne (WB). Although all of these methods include parameters that control the degree of model misfit, none can generate data that reproduce multiple fit indices. To address this issue, we describe a multiple-target TKL method that can generate error-perturbed data that will reproduce target RMSEA and CFI values either individually or together. To evaluate this method, we simulated error-perturbed correlation matrices for an array of factor analysis models using the multiple-target TKL method, the CB method, and the WB method. Our results indicated that the multiple-target TKL method produced solutions with RMSEA and CFI values that were closer to their target values than those of the alternative methods. Thus, the multiple-target TKL method should be a useful tool for researchers who wish to generate error-perturbed correlation matrices with a known degree of model error. All functions that are described in this work are available in the fungible $R$ library. Additional materials (e.g., $R$ code, supplemental results) are available at https://osf.io/vxr8d/.

In this article, we propose latent variable models that jointly account for responses and response times (RTs) in multidimensional personality measurements. We address two key research questions regarding the latent structure of RT distributions through model comparisons. First, we decompose RT into decision and non-decision times by incorporating irreducible minimum shifts in RT distributions, as done in cognitive decision-making models. Second, we investigate whether the speed factor underlying decision times should be multidimensional with the same latent structure as personality traits, or, if a unidimensional speed factor suffices. Comprehensive model comparisons across four distinct datasets suggest that a joint model with person-specific parameters to account for shifts in RT distributions and a unidimensional speed factor provides the best account for ordinal responses and RTs. Posterior predictive checks further confirm these findings. Additionally, simulation studies validate the parameter recovery of the proposed models and support the empirical results. Most importantly, failing to account for the irreducible minimum shift in RT distributions leads to systematic biases in other model components and severe underestimation of the nonlinear relationship between responses and RTs.

Psychological researchers and practitioners collect increasingly complex time series data aimed at identifying differences between the developments of participants or patients. Past research has proposed a number of dynamic measures that describe meaningful developmental patterns for psychological data (e.g., instability, inertia, linear trend). Yet, commonly used clustering approaches are often not able to include these meaningful measures (e.g., due to model assumptions). We propose feature-based time series clustering as a flexible, transparent, and well-grounded approach that clusters participants based on the dynamic measures directly using common clustering algorithms. We introduce the approach and illustrate the utility of the method with real-world empirical data that highlight common ESM challenges of multivariate conceptualizations, structural missingness, and non-stationary trends. We use the data to showcase the main steps of input selection, feature extraction, feature reduction, feature clustering, and cluster evaluation. We also provide practical algorithm overviews and readily available code for data preparation, analysis, and interpretation.

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.