Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25822209›Full record

ArticlePsychological methods2015

The cusp catastrophe model as cross-sectional and longitudinal mixture structural equation models.

Sy-Miin Chow, Katie Witkiewitz, Raoul P P P Grasman, Stephen A Maisto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological methods, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Common and unique latent transition analysis (CULTA) as a way to examine the trait-state dynamics of alcohol intoxication.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Conceptualizing and Examining Change in Communication Research.Communication methods and measures · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sy-Miin ChowDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University.
Katie WitkiewitzDepartment of Psychology, University of New Mexico.
Raoul P P P GrasmanDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam.
Stephen A MaistoDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University.

Funding

Modeling the Dynamics of Early Communication and DevelopmentR01GM105004 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI CORAL GABLES · PI CHOW, SY-MIIN, COHN, JEFFREY F · 2013 to 2016
$2.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM105004NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM105004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Catastrophe theory (Thom, 1972, 1993) is the study of the many ways in which continuous changes in a system's parameters can result in discontinuous changes in 1 or several outcome variables of interest. Catastrophe theory-inspired models have been used to represent a variety of change phenomena in the realm of social and behavioral sciences. Despite their promise, widespread applications of catastrophe models have been impeded, in part, by difficulties in performing model fitting and model comparison procedures. We propose a new modeling framework for testing 1 kind of catastrophe model-the cusp catastrophe model-as a mixture structural equation model (MSEM) when cross-sectional data are available; or alternatively, as an MSEM with regime-switching (MSEM-RS) when longitudinal panel data are available. The proposed models and the advantages offered by this alternative modeling framework are illustrated using 2 empirical examples and a simulation study.

Indexed as

Models, PsychologicalModels, StatisticalHumans

Identifiers

PMID25822209
PMCPMC4506274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.