ArticleStructural equation modeling : a multidisciplinary journal2026
Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Estimation in Cross-Domain Latent Growth Curve Modeling: The Impact of Reliability, Sample Size, and Missing Data.
Article in Structural equation modeling : a multidisciplinary journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cross-domain latent growth curve (CD-LGC) models are commonly used in longitudinal studies and allow researchers to assess the associations between changes in time-varying predictors and outcomes, or the 'change-on-change' effects. This study examined the performance of Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation, regression-based Bayesian (B-Reg) estimation, and covariance-based Bayesian (B-Cov) estimation methods in CD-LGC models. Through simulation, we evaluated how the estimation process is influenced by several key factors, including the reliability (shaped by the number of measurement occasions and the magnitude and structure of measurement error), sample size, and patterns of missing data. Overall, B-Cov consistently demonstrated superior or equal performance compared to other methods, yielding high convergence rates, low biases, and small mean squared errors. FIML underperformed in conditions of lower reliability (i.e., fewer measurement occasions or larger measurement error variance), while B-Reg exhibited severe biases in most conditions.
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.