ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Appropriate modeling of endogeneity in cross-lagged models: Efficacy of auxiliary and model-implied instrumental variables.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. 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.
- Multiple chronic conditions and intrinsic capacity among middle-aged and older adults: Evidence from CHARLS.Medicine · 2026Article
- Does Poor Sleep Fuel Emotional Suppression? A Three-Wave RI-CLPM in Chinese Adolescents Reveals Sex-based Cultural Mechanisms.Journal of youth and adolescence · 2026Article
- The relationship between structural characteristics of long-term care institutions and their initial operating budgets.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Endogeneity is a critical concern in research methodologies, yet it has been insufficiently addressed in longitudinal cross-lagged models, leading to potentially biased outcomes. This study scrutinized the endogeneity inherent in the cross-lagged panel model (CLPM), a prevalent and representative framework in longitudinal studies. We evaluated the efficacy of the instrumental variables (IV) methods, specifically focusing on both the auxiliary IVs (AIVs) and the model-implied IVs (MIIVs), in mitigating endogeneity issues. Simulation results indicated that endogeneity induced bias in CLPM, notably overestimating cross-lagged effects and thereby amplifying the apparent causal relationships. AIV-CLPM showed a smaller, yet still unacceptably high bias, along with low robustness and elevated type I error rates. In contrast, the MIIV-CLPM produced more accurate estimates with fewer type I errors, and, given sufficient observations, it achieved moderate statistical power. An extended simulation incorporating the random-intercept CLPM supported these findings, highlighting the generalizability of this approach. Furthermore, an empirical illustration demonstrated the practicality and feasibility of the MIIV-CLPM. Overall, MIIV is proven to be a superior modeling option within cross-lagged frameworks, effectively mitigating biases caused by endogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40108062What 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.