A general Monte Carlo method for sample size analysis in the context of network models.

We introduce a general method for sample size computations in the context of cross-sectional network models. The method takes the form of an automated Monte Carlo algorithm, designed to find an optimal sample size while iteratively concentrating the computations on the sample sizes that seem most relevant. The method requires three inputs: (1) a hypothesized network structure or desired characteristics of that structure, (2) an estimation performance measure and its corresponding target value (e.g., a sensitivity of 0.6), and (3) a statistic and its corresponding target value that determines how the target value for the performance measure be reached (e.g., reaching a sensitivity of 0.6 with a probability of 0.8). The method consists of a Monte Carlo simulation step for computing the performance measure and the statistic for several sample sizes selected from an initial candidate sample size range, a curve-fitting step for interpolating the statistic across the entire candidate range, and a stratified bootstrapping step to quantify the uncertainty around the recommendation provided. We evaluated the performance of the method for the Gaussian Graphical Model, but it can easily extend to other models. The method displayed good performance, providing sample size recommendations that were, on average, within three observations of a benchmark sample size, with the highest standard deviation of 25.87 observations. The method discussed is implemented in the form of an R package called powerly, available on GitHub and CRAN. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

A tool to simulate and visualize dyadic interaction dynamics.

ynamic models are becoming increasingly popular to study the dynamic processes of dyadic interactions. In this article, we present a Dyadic Interaction Dynamics (DID) Shiny app which provides simulations and visualizations of data from several models that have been proposed for the analysis of dyadic data. We propose data generation as a tool to inspire and guide theory development and elaborate on how to connect substantive ideas to specific features of these models. We begin by discussing the basics of dynamic models with dyadic interactions. Then we present several models and illustrate model-implied behavior through generated data, accompanied by the DID Shiny app which allows researchers to generate and visualize their own data. Specifically, we consider: (a) the first-order vector autoregressive (VAR(1)) model; (b) the latent VAR(1) model; (c) the time-varying VAR(1) model; (d) the threshold VAR(1) model; (e) the hidden Markov model; and (f) the Markov-switching VAR(1) model. Finally, we demonstrate these models using empirical examples. We aim to give researchers more insight into what dynamic modeling approach fits their research question and data best. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Examining the within- and between-person structure of a short form of the positive and negative affect schedule: A multilevel and dynamic approach.

Increasing research uses intensive longitudinal designs to examine antecedents and consequences associated with dynamic affective processes. These studies often rely on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) to measure affect. Studies assessing the structure of the PANAS are largely cross-sectional in nature and cannot always disentangle within-person variability from between-person differences in affect. A paucity of studies examines structural similarities and differences in affect at the between- and within-person levels, and few have done so with short-form versions of the PANAS. This study investigates the multilevel factor structure of the 10-item PANAS-short-form in a sample of young adults (n = 272) measured daily consecutively over 1 month. Additionally, dynamic relations between positive and negative affect, depressive symptoms, stress, and physical symptoms were examined. Results support a three factors within and two factors between multilevel structural model. Distinct dynamic relations were observed among positive affect, negative affect, stress, and physical symptoms at the within level. Positive and negative affect were correlated with depressive symptoms, stress, and physical symptoms at the between level. Findings indicate the need to disentangle structural components of positive and negative affect when conducting intensive longitudinal studies to examine correlates linked to dynamic affective processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Are Retrospective Assessments Means of People's Experiences?: Accounting for Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Variability when Comparing Retrospective Assessment Data to Ecological Momentary Assessment Data.

Retrospective Assessment (RA) scores are often found to be higher than the mean of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) scores about a concurrent period. This difference is generally interpreted as bias towards salient experiences in RA. During RA participants are often asked to summarize their experiences in unspecific terms, leaving room for personal interpretation. As a result, participants may use various strategies to summarize their experiences. In this study, we reanalyzed an existing dataset (N = 92) using a repeated N = 1 approach. We assessed for each participant whether it was likely that their RA score was an approximation of the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA scores. We found considerable interpersonal differences in the difference between EMA scores and RA scores, as well as some extreme cases. Furthermore, for a considerable part of the sample (n = 46 for positive affect, n = 56 for negative affect), we did not reject the null hypothesis that their RA score represented the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA scores. We conclude that in its current unspecific form RA may facilitate bias, although not for everyone. Future studies may determine whether differences between RA and EMA are mitigated using more specific forms of RA, while acknowledging interindividual differences.

A Review of Explicit and Implicit Assumptions When Providing Personalized Feedback Based on Self-Report EMA Data.

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in which participants report on their moment-to-moment experiences in their natural environment, is a hot topic. An emerging field in clinical psychology based on either EMA, or what we term Ecological Retrospective Assessment (ERA) as it requires retrospectivity, is the field of personalized feedback. In this field, EMA/ERA-data-driven summaries are presented to participants with the goal of promoting their insight in their experiences. Underlying this procedure are some fundamental assumptions about (i) the relation between true moment-to-moment experiences and retrospective evaluations of those experiences, (ii) the translation of these experiences and evaluations to different types of data, (iii) the comparison of these different types of data, and (iv) the impact of a summary of moment-to-moment experiences on retrospective evaluations of those experiences. We argue that these assumptions deserve further exploration, in order to create a strong evidence-based foundation for the personalized feedback procedure.

Measurement error and person-specific reliability in multilevel autoregressive modeling.

An increasing number of researchers in psychology are collecting intensive longitudinal data in order to study psychological processes on an intraindividual level. An increasingly popular way to analyze these data is autoregressive time series modeling; either by modeling the repeated measures for a single individual using classic n = 1 autoregressive models, or by using multilevel extensions of these models, with the dynamics for each individual modeled at Level 1 and interindividual differences in these dynamics modeled at Level 2. However, while it is widely accepted in psychology that psychological measurements usually contain a certain amount of measurement error, the issue of measurement error is largely neglected in applied psychological (autoregressive) time series modeling: The regular autoregressive model incorporates innovations, or "dynamic errors," but not measurement error. In this article we discuss the concepts of reliability and measurement error in the context of dynamic (VAR(1)) models, and the consequences of disregarding measurement error variance in the data. For this purpose, we present a preliminary model that accounts for measurement error for constructs that are measured with a single indicator. We further discuss how this model could be used to investigate the between-person reliability of the measurements, as well as the (person-specific) within-person reliabilities and any individual differences in these reliabilities. We illustrate the consequences of assuming perfect reliability, the preliminary model, and reliabilities, using an empirical application in which we relate women's general positive affect to their positive affect concerning their romantic relationship. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

How to compare cross-lagged associations in a multilevel autoregressive model.

By modeling variables over time it is possible to investigate the Granger-causal cross-lagged associations between variables. By comparing the standardized cross-lagged coefficients, the relative strength of these associations can be evaluated in order to determine important driving forces in the dynamic system. The aim of this study was twofold: first, to illustrate the added value of a multilevel multivariate autoregressive modeling approach for investigating these associations over more traditional techniques; and second, to discuss how the coefficients of the multilevel autoregressive model should be standardized for comparing the strength of the cross-lagged associations. The hierarchical structure of multilevel multivariate autoregressive models complicates standardization, because subject-based statistics or group-based statistics can be used to standardize the coefficients, and each method may result in different conclusions. We argue that in order to make a meaningful comparison of the strength of the cross-lagged associations, the coefficients should be standardized within persons. We further illustrate the bivariate multilevel autoregressive model and the standardization of the coefficients, and we show that disregarding individual differences in dynamics can prove misleading, by means of an empirical example on experienced competence and exhaustion in persons diagnosed with burnout. (PsycINFO Database Record

Incorporating measurement error in n = 1 psychological autoregressive modeling.

Measurement error is omnipresent in psychological data. However, the vast majority of applications of autoregressive time series analyses in psychology do not take measurement error into account. Disregarding measurement error when it is present in the data results in a bias of the autoregressive parameters. We discuss two models that take measurement error into account: An autoregressive model with a white noise term (AR+WN), and an autoregressive moving average (ARMA) model. In a simulation study we compare the parameter recovery performance of these models, and compare this performance for both a Bayesian and frequentist approach. We find that overall, the AR+WN model performs better. Furthermore, we find that for realistic (i.e., small) sample sizes, psychological research would benefit from a Bayesian approach in fitting these models. Finally, we illustrate the effect of disregarding measurement error in an AR(1) model by means of an empirical application on mood data in women. We find that, depending on the person, approximately 30-50% of the total variance was due to measurement error, and that disregarding this measurement error results in a substantial underestimation of the autoregressive parameters.

Measurement invariance within and between individuals: a distinct problem in testing the equivalence of intra- and inter-individual model structures.

We address the question of equivalence between modeling results obtained on intra-individual and inter-individual levels of psychometric analysis. Our focus is on the concept of measurement invariance and the role it may play in this context. We discuss this in general against the background of the latent variable paradigm, complemented by an operational demonstration in terms of a linear state-space model, i.e., a time series model with latent variables. Implemented in a multiple-occasion and multiple-subject setting, the model simultaneously accounts for intra-individual and inter-individual differences. We consider the conditions-in terms of invariance constraints-under which modeling results are generalizable (a) over time within subjects, (b) over subjects within occasions, and (c) over time and subjects simultaneously thus implying an equivalence-relationship between both dimensions. Since we distinguish the measurement model from the structural model governing relations between the latent variables of interest, we decompose the invariance constraints into those that involve structural parameters and those that involve measurement parameters and relate to measurement invariance. Within the resulting taxonomy of models, we show that, under the condition of measurement invariance over time and subjects, there exists a form of structural equivalence between levels of analysis that is distinct from full structural equivalence, i.e., ergodicity. We demonstrate how measurement invariance between and within subjects can be tested in the context of high-frequency repeated measures in personality research. Finally, we relate problems of measurement variance to problems of non-ergodicity as currently discussed and approached in the literature.