ArticleMultivariate behavioral research
On the Importance of Considering Concurrent Effects in Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Modelling: Example Analysis of Bullying and Internalising Problems.
Article in Multivariate behavioral research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Techno-interference as an inverse proximal process: Within-person pathways from parental phubbing to cyber deviance via loneliness in early and late adolescence.Journal of research on adolescence : the official journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence · 2026Article
- The relationship between restrained eating and physical activity among female university students: a cross-lagged study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Occupational future time perspective and mental health problems across adolescence: Random-intercept cross-lagged panel analysis and alternative variations.Journal of adolescence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Random-intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPMs) are increasingly used to investigate research questions focusing on how one variable at one time point affects another variable at the subsequent time point. Due to the implied temporal sequence of events in such research designs, interpretations of RI-CLPMs primarily focus on longitudinal cross-lagged paths while disregarding concurrent associations and modeling these only as residual covariances. However, this may cause biased cross-lagged effects. This may be especially so when data collected at the same time point refers to different reference timeframes, creating a temporal sequence of events for constructs measured concurrently. To examine this issue, we conducted a series of empirical analyses in which the impact of modeling or not modeling of directional within-time point associations may impact inferences drawn from RI-CLPMs using data from the longitudinal z-proso study. Results highlight that not considering directional concurrent effects may lead to biased cross-lagged effects. Thus, it is essential to carefully consider potential directional concurrent effects when choosing models to analyze directional associations between variables over time. If temporal sequences of concurrent effects cannot be clearly established, testing multiple models and drawing conclusions based on the robustness of effects across all models is recommended.
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.