{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02485089463220676, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.897260273972603, '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': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Practical Interpretability of Cross-Lagged Panel Models: Rethinking a Developmental Workhorse.

Reciprocal feedback processes between experience and development are central to contemporary developmental theory. Autoregressive cross-lagged panel (ARCL) models represent a common analytic approach intended to test such dynamics. The authors demonstrate that-despite the ARCL model's intuitive appeal-it typically (a) fails to align with the theoretical processes that it is intended to test and (b) yields estimates that are difficult to interpret meaningfully. Specifically, using a Monte Carlo simulation and two empirical examples concerning the reciprocal relation between spanking and child aggression, it is shown that the cross-lagged estimates derived from the ARCL model reflect a weighted-and typically uninterpretable-amalgam of between- and within-person associations. The authors highlight one readily implemented respecification that better addresses these multiple levels of inference.