By modeling variables over time it is possible to investigate the Granger-causal cross-lagged associations between variables. By comparing the standardized cross-lagged coefficients, the relative strength of these associations can be evaluated in order to determine important driving forces in the dynamic system. The aim of this study was twofold: first, to illustrate the added value of a multilevel multivariate autoregressive modeling approach for investigating these associations over more traditional techniques; and second, to discuss how the coefficients of the multilevel autoregressive model should be standardized for comparing the strength of the cross-lagged associations. The hierarchical structure of multilevel multivariate autoregressive models complicates standardization, because subject-based statistics or group-based statistics can be used to standardize the coefficients, and each method may result in different conclusions. We argue that in order to make a meaningful comparison of the strength of the cross-lagged associations, the coefficients should be standardized within persons. We further illustrate the bivariate multilevel autoregressive model and the standardization of the coefficients, and we show that disregarding individual differences in dynamics can prove misleading, by means of an empirical example on experienced competence and exhaustion in persons diagnosed with burnout. (PsycINFO Database Record

An increasing number of researchers in psychology are collecting intensive longitudinal data in order to study psychological processes on an intraindividual level. An increasingly popular way to analyze these data is autoregressive time series modeling; either by modeling the repeated measures for a single individual using classic n = 1 autoregressive models, or by using multilevel extensions of these models, with the dynamics for each individual modeled at Level 1 and interindividual differences in these dynamics modeled at Level 2. However, while it is widely accepted in psychology that psychological measurements usually contain a certain amount of measurement error, the issue of measurement error is largely neglected in applied psychological (autoregressive) time series modeling: The regular autoregressive model incorporates innovations, or "dynamic errors," but not measurement error. In this article we discuss the concepts of reliability and measurement error in the context of dynamic (VAR(1)) models, and the consequences of disregarding measurement error variance in the data. For this purpose, we present a preliminary model that accounts for measurement error for constructs that are measured with a single indicator. We further discuss how this model could be used to investigate the between-person reliability of the measurements, as well as the (person-specific) within-person reliabilities and any individual differences in these reliabilities. We illustrate the consequences of assuming perfect reliability, the preliminary model, and reliabilities, using an empirical application in which we relate women's general positive affect to their positive affect concerning their romantic relationship. (PsycINFO Database Record

Measurement error is omnipresent in psychological data. However, the vast majority of applications of autoregressive time series analyses in psychology do not take measurement error into account. Disregarding measurement error when it is present in the data results in a bias of the autoregressive parameters. We discuss two models that take measurement error into account: An autoregressive model with a white noise term (AR+WN), and an autoregressive moving average (ARMA) model. In a simulation study we compare the parameter recovery performance of these models, and compare this performance for both a Bayesian and frequentist approach. We find that overall, the AR+WN model performs better. Furthermore, we find that for realistic (i.e., small) sample sizes, psychological research would benefit from a Bayesian approach in fitting these models. Finally, we illustrate the effect of disregarding measurement error in an AR(1) model by means of an empirical application on mood data in women. We find that, depending on the person, approximately 30–50% of the total variance was due to measurement error, and that disregarding this measurement error results in a substantial underestimation of the autoregressive parameters.

Multilevel autoregressive models are especially suited for modeling between-person differences in within-person processes. Fitting these models with Bayesian techniques requires the specification of prior distributions for all parameters. Often it is desirable to specify prior distributions that have negligible effects on the resulting parameter estimates. However, the conjugate prior distribution for covariance matrices-the Inverse-Wishart distribution-tends to be informative when variances are close to zero. This is problematic for multilevel autoregressive models, because autoregressive parameters are usually small for each individual, so that the variance of these parameters will be small. We performed a simulation study to compare the performance of three Inverse-Wishart prior specifications suggested in the literature, when one or more variances for the random effects in the multilevel autoregressive model are small. Our results show that the prior specification that uses plug-in ML estimates of the variances performs best. We advise to always include a sensitivity analysis for the prior specification for covariance matrices of random parameters, especially in autoregressive models, and to include a data-based prior specification in this analysis. We illustrate such an analysis by means of an empirical application on repeated measures data on worrying and positive affect.

In this article, we show that the underlying dimensions obtained when factor analyzing cross-sectional data actually form a mix of within-person state dimensions and between-person trait dimensions. We propose a factor analytical model that distinguishes between four independent sources of variance: common trait, unique trait, common state, and unique state. We show that by testing whether there is weak factorial invariance across the trait and state factor structures, we can tackle the fundamental question first raised by Cattell; that is, are within-person state dimensions qualitatively the same as between-person trait dimensions? Furthermore, we discuss how this model is related to other trait-state factor models, and we illustrate its use with two empirical data sets. We end by discussing the implications for cross-sectional factor analysis and suggest potential future developments.