↓ Skip to main content

Distinguishing state variability from trait change in longitudinal data: The role of measurement (non)invariance in latent state-trait analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Distinguishing state variability from trait change in longitudinal data: The role of measurement (non)invariance in latent state-trait analyses
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, March 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13428-014-0457-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Geiser, Brian T. Keller, Ginger Lockhart, Michael Eid, David A. Cole, Tobias Koch

Abstract

Researchers analyzing longitudinal data often want to find out whether the process they study is characterized by (1) short-term state variability, (2) long-term trait change, or (3) a combination of state variability and trait change. Classical latent state-trait (LST) models are designed to measure reversible state variability around a fixed set-point or trait, whereas latent growth curve (LGC) models focus on long-lasting and often irreversible trait changes. In the present article, we contrast LST and LGC models from the perspective of measurement invariance testing. We show that establishing a pure state-variability process requires (1) the inclusion of a mean structure and (2) establishing strong factorial invariance in LST analyses. Analytical derivations and simulations demonstrate that LST models with noninvariant parameters can mask the fact that a trait-change or hybrid process has generated the data. Furthermore, the inappropriate application of LST models to trait change or hybrid data can lead to bias in the estimates of consistency and occasion specificity, which are typically of key interest in LST analyses. Four tips for the proper application of LST models are provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 34%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Professor 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 52%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Mathematics 3 4%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2016.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,469
of 2,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,689
of 237,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 237,291 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.