Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40108062›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Appropriate modeling of endogeneity in cross-lagged models: Efficacy of auxiliary and model-implied instrumental variables.

Junyan Fang, Zhonglin Wen, Kit-Tai Hau, Xitong Huang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Junyan FangPublic Courses Teaching Department, Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhonglin WenCenter for Studies of Psychological Application/School of Psychology, South China Normal University, No. 55 Zhongshan Avenue West, Guangzhou, 510631, China. wenzl@scnu.edu.cn.
Kit-Tai HauDepartment of Educational Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Xitong HuangThe First Clinical Medicine School, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 32171091Youth Doctoral Funding of Guangzhou Sport University 5240180563
6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalBiasComputer SimulationHumansLongitudinal StudiesAuxiliary instrumental variableCross-lagged panel modelEndogeneityModel implied instrumental variable

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.