Drawing Conclusions from Cross-Lagged Relationships: Re-Considering the Role of the Time-Interval

139Citations
Citations of this article
140Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The cross-lagged panel model (CLPM), a discrete-time (DT) SEM model, is frequently used to gather evidence for (reciprocal) Granger-causal relationships when lacking an experimental design. However, it is well known that CLPMs can lead to different parameter estimates depending on the time-interval of observation. Consequently, this can lead to researchers drawing conflicting conclusions regarding the sign and/or dominance of relationships. Multiple authors have suggested the use of continuous-time models to address this issue. In this article, we demonstrate the exact circumstances under which such conflicting conclusions occur. Specifically, we show that such conflicts are only avoided in general in the case of bivariate, stable, nonoscillating, first-order systems, when comparing models with uniform time-intervals between observations. In addition, we provide a range of tools, proofs, and guidelines regarding the comparison of discrete- and continuous-time parameter estimates.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kuiper, R. M., & Ryan, O. (2018). Drawing Conclusions from Cross-Lagged Relationships: Re-Considering the Role of the Time-Interval. Structural Equation Modeling, 25(5), 809–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1431046

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free