Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37937063›Full record

ArticleStructural equation modeling : a multidisciplinary journal2023

Testing for

Lydia Gabriela Speyer, Anastasia Ushakova, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, Aja Louise Murray, Rogier Kievit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Structural equation modeling : a multidisciplinary journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Buffering Effects of Physical Activity on Negative Life Events-Life Satisfaction Dynamics.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Lydia Gabriela SpeyerDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9071-4020
Anastasia UshakovaCenter for Health Informatics, Computing and Statistics, University of Lancaster Medical School, United Kingdom.
Sarah-Jayne BlakemoreDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Aja Louise MurrayDepartment of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Rogier KievitMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GBLancaster University · GBRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 104908Wellcome Trust 107496
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Models allow for the decomposition of measurements into between- and within-person components and have hence become popular for testing developmental hypotheses. Here, we describe how developmental researchers can implement, test and interpret interaction effects in such models using an empirical example from developmental psychopathology research. We illustrate the analysis of

Indexed as

conduct problemsemotional problemsMillennium Cohort StudymoderationRI-CLPM

Identifiers

PMID37937063
PMCPMC7615284
OpenAlexW4223414077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.