Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 29 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYPLoS ONE

Spurious effects in random-intercept cross-lagged panel models: Results from simulations and reanalyses of data on self-esteem and problematic eating behaviors used by Beckers et al. (2023)

  1. 1Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  2. 2Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract

The random-intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) is an extension of the traditional cross-lagged panel model. The RI-CPLM specifically addresses prospective effects within individuals. In the present simulations, we found that the RI-CLPM is susceptible to spurious findings when observed scores on the two variables are affected by common auto-correlated state factors. In reanalyses of empirical data, we found contradictory decreasing, increasing, and null prospective effects between within-individual levels of self-esteem and problematic eating behaviors among Dutch teenagers (N = 1856). These contradictory findings indicated that previously reported prospective effects may have been statistical artifacts. Caution is advised when using the RI-CLPM, as it may produce misleading results. Researchers are recommended to validate findings using alternative analyses, e.g., by examining person-mean centered scores.

Related

  1. How to Train Your Intercept: A Comparison of Intercept Update Strategies in Coordinate Descent
    Johan Larsson, Frederik Fabricius-Bjerre
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textOptimisation & controlStatisticsarXiv
  2. Consistent intercept estimation and inference for unit-root INAR(2) processes
    Yang Lu, Márton Ispány
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textStatisticsarXiv
  3. A One-Stage Approach for Estimating a Meta-Analytic Continuous-Time Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model
    Julian F Lohmann, Oliver Lüdtke, Alexander Robitzsch
    PsyArXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textStatisticsOSF
  4. Proportional-limit asymptotics for Diaconis-Ylvisaker-penalised logistic regression with fitted intercept
    Philipp Sterzinger
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textStatisticsarXiv
  5. Optimal Guidance with Terminal Intercept-Angle Constraints and Acceleration Bounds
    Yoav Azaryahu, Vitaly Shaferman
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textOptimisation & controlarXiv
BibTeX
@article{sorjonen2026spurious,
  title = {{Spurious effects in random-intercept cross-lagged panel models: Results from simulations and reanalyses of data on self-esteem and problematic eating behaviors used by Beckers et al. (2023)}},
  author = {Kimmo Sorjonen and Gustav Nilsonne and Ata Ghaderi and Bo Melin},
  journal = {PLoS ONE},
  year = {2026},
  month = jun,
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0351302},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0351302},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Spurious effects in random-intercept cross-lagged panel models: Results from simulations and reanalyses of data on self-esteem and problematic eating behaviors used by Beckers et al. (2023)
AU  - Kimmo Sorjonen
AU  - Gustav Nilsonne
AU  - Ata Ghaderi
AU  - Bo Melin
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/06/08
JO  - PLoS ONE
DO  - 10.1371/journal.pone.0351302
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0351302
AB  - The random-intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) is an extension of the traditional cross-lagged panel model. The RI-CPLM specifically addresses prospective effects within individuals. In the present simulations, we found that the RI-CLPM is susceptible to spurious findings when observed scores on the two variables are affected by common auto-correlated state factors. In reanalyses of empirical data, we found contradictory decreasing, increasing, and null prospective effects between within-individual levels of self-esteem and problematic eating behaviors among Dutch teenagers (N = 1856). These contradictory findings indicated that previously reported prospective effects may have been statistical artifacts. Caution is advised when using the RI-CLPM, as it may produce misleading results. Researchers are recommended to validate findings using alternative analyses, e.g., by examining person-mean centered scores.
SN  - 1932-6203
ER  -