ArticlePloS one2025
Using triangulation to evaluate findings from random-intercept cross-lagged panel models: An application with data on curiosity and creativity.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commentary: The longitudinal impact of emotional intelligence and psychological empowerment on work engagement among university administrators: a cross-lagged panel model approach.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Inconclusive prospective associations between food insecurity, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms: a comment on Baek and Yoon (2026).Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Inconclusive mutually reinforcing effects between associative learning and fluid intelligence: simulated reanalyses and a comment on Ren et al. (2026).Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Inconclusive prospective associations between maternal emotional expressiveness and children's callous-unemotional traits: a reanalysis and comment on Hu et al. (2026).Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- Inconclusive effects between executive functions and symptoms of psychiatric disorders in random-intercept cross-lagged panel models: a simulated reanalysis and comment on Halse et al. (2022).Frontiers in psychology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a recent study, researchers found cross-lagged effects between curiosity and creativity in an analysis with the random-intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) and concluded that curiosity and creativity mutually reinforce each other. However, it is known that the RI-CLPM can give biased results. Here, we used triangulation and analyzed the same data (N = 400) with additional models, including a latent change score model (LCSM) and multilevel regression analyses of person-mean centered scores. Only results from the original RI-CLPM were consistent with the conclusion of mutually reinforcing effects between curiosity and creativity while results from the other models contradicted this conclusion. Moreover, the model of spurious longitudinal associations (MoSLA) suggested that data might have been generated without any direct effects between curiosity and creativity. An aggregation of available evidence made us conclude that longitudinal associations between curiosity and creativity in the present data probably were spurious, possibly due to confounding by a trait common to curiosity and creativity and common auto-correlated state factors with effects on curiosity and creativity measured at the same occasion. The present study, and the available analytic script, can be used as a model/tutorial by researchers wishing to scrutinize results from the RI-CLPM.
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.