{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02127659574468085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.71957671957672, '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}}
Matching method with theory in person-oriented developmental psychopathology research

Abstract The person-oriented approach seeks to match theories and methods that portray development as a holistic, highly interactional, and individualized process. Over the past decade, this approach has gained popularity in developmental psychopathology research, particularly as model-based varieties of person-oriented methods have emerged. Although these methods allow some principles of person-oriented theory to be tested, little attention has been paid to the fact that these methods cannot test other principles, and may actually be inconsistent with certain principles. Lacking clarification regarding which aspects of person-oriented theory are testable under which person-oriented methods, assumptions of the methods have sometimes been presented as testable hypotheses or interpreted as affirming the theory. This general blurring of the line between person-oriented theory and method has even led to the occasional perception that the method is the theory and vice versa. We review assumptions, strengths, and limitations of model-based person-oriented methods, clarifying which theoretical principles they can test and the compromises and trade-offs required to do so.