ArticlePsychological methods2021
Beneath the surface: Unearthing within-person variability and mean relations with Bayesian mixed models.
Article in Psychological methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining within-person variability of each individual: How should we deal with non-varying individuals?Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Trial-By-Trial Changes in Neural Indices of Performance Monitoring Uniquely Correspond to Behavioral Adjustments During a Flanker Task.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Impact of ERP Reliability Cutoffs on Sample Characteristics and Effect Sizes: Performance-Monitoring ERPs in Psychosis and Healthy Controls.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Heterogeneity in suicide risk: Evidence from personalized dynamic models.Behaviour research and therapy · 2024Article
- Do people know how suicidal they will be? Understanding suicidal prospection.Suicide & life-threatening behavior · 2024Article
- Individual random effects model for differences in trait distribution among respondents.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The psychometric upgrade psychophysiology needs.Psychophysiology · 2024Review
- Interindividual Differences in Cognitive Variability Are Ubiquitous and Distinct From Mean Performance in a Battery of Eleven Tasks.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Measuring self-regulation in everyday life: Reliability and validity of smartphone-based experiments in alcohol use disorder.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Unpacking Habit With Bayesian Mixed Models: Dynamic Approach to Health Behaviors With Interchangeable Elements, Illustrated Through Multiple Sun Protection Behaviors.The quantitative methods for psychology · 2023Article
- Putting the individual into reliability: Bayesian testing of homogeneous within-person variance in hierarchical models.Behavior research methods · 2022Article
- Bayesian Multivariate Mixed-Effects Location Scale Modeling of Longitudinal Relations Among Affective Traits, States, and Physical Activity.European journal of psychological assessment : official organ of the European Association of Psychological Assessment · 2020Article
- Statements About the Pervasiveness of Behavior Require Data About the Pervasiveness of Behavior.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mixed-effects models are becoming common in psychological science. Although they have many desirable features, there is still untapped potential. It is customary to view homogeneous variance as an assumption to satisfy. We argue to move beyond that perspective, and to view modeling within-person variance as an opportunity to gain a richer understanding of psychological processes. The technique to do so is based on the mixed-effects location scale model that can simultaneously estimate mixed-effects submodels to both the mean (location) and within-person variance (scale). We develop a framework that goes beyond assessing the submodels in isolation of one another and introduce a novel Bayesian hypothesis test for mean-variance correlations in the distribution of random effects. We first present a motivating example, which makes clear how the model can characterize mean-variance relations. We then apply the method to reaction times (RTs) gathered from 2 cognitive inhibition tasks. We find there are more individual differences in the within-person variance than the mean structure, as well as a complex web of structural mean-variance relations. This stands in contrast to the dominant view of within-person variance (i.e., "noise"). The results also point toward paradoxical within-person, as opposed to between-person, effects: several people had
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.