{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.043621399176954734, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032921810699588477, 'mean_word_length': 5.831460674157303, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Accounting for Time-Varying Inter-Individual Differences in Trajectories when Assessing Cross-Lagged Models

ABSTRACT This paper explores relationships amongst cross-lagged models allowing trajectories to be freely estimated, some accounting for time-varying differences amongst individuals (Autoregressive Latent Trajectory (ALT), General Cross-lagged Model (GCLM), and Latent Growth Curve Model with Structured Residuals and Unspecified Growth Trajectory (LGCM-SR-UGT)) and some not (Cross-lagged Panel Model (CLPM), Random Intercept Cross-lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM), and Mean Stationary GCLM). An applied example using LSAY data demonstrates these models. Simulations examine (1) fit indices assessing “good” fit and Bayes Factor for model selection; (2) consequences of ignoring variability in trajectories on cross-lagged estimates. Findings were (1) RMSEA discerned “good” fit and Bayes Factor tended to select models closely related to true model over less related models; (2) various patterns of bias in path estimates and standard errors are found, in particular, causal dominance in conjunction with time-variant between-person variance and covariance were notably influential on bias in path estimates.