Cross-lagged multilevel model? PreviousNext
Mplus Discussion > Structural Equation Modeling >
 WAM posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 6:47 am
I tested a reciprocal relationship between two variables (measured at 3 occasions). One of the reviewers insists that the cross-lag model must be tested using M+ by taking the multi-level structure of the data (occasions nested within students, which are nested within classrooms) in to account. Is there such a possibility?
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 1:37 pm
Yes, see Example 9.12.
 Natalie Wright posted on Monday, April 21, 2014 - 4:42 pm
I have a question similar to the one asked by the previous poster. I want to test an autoregressive latent trajectory model incorporating 2 variables measured on 3 occasions. However, the data has a nested structure (students within classrooms). The higher-order units aren't of substantial research interest. I know that multilevel latent growth models and multilevel cross-lagged models can be tested in Mplus, but I haven't seen anything, either in the Mplus documentation or elsewhere, regarding multilevel ALT models. Can this model be specified in Mplus? If so, would TYPE=TWOLEVEL or TYPE=COMPLEX option be more appropriate?

Thanks for any help that you can provide!
 Linda K. Muthen posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2014 - 10:07 am
Mplus can estimate multilevel ALT models. I don't have an example. You might want to ask if someone on SEMNET has one. I think TYPE=TWOLEVEL would be the best choice.
 Wonho Jeung posted on Sunday, May 17, 2015 - 9:46 am
I am testing a reciprocal and time-lagged relationship between two variables (both variables are time-varying measured at 3 occasions). The data has a multilevel structure such that occasions for both variables are nested in person and person nested in teams. You mentioned to see Example 9.12 but I don't know how to apply that example to my model. It has only one time-varying variables.

The following is how I enterd the model.

USEVARIABLES ARE v001 v220 v221 v222 v244 v245 v246 ;
Missing are all (999);
Cluster is v001;

TYPE IS Twolevel Random;


iw1 sw1 | v220@0 v221@1 v222@2;
iw2 sw2 | v244@0 v245@1 v246@2;
iw2 sw2 on iw1;
iw1 sw1 on iw2;
iw1 with sw1;
iw2 with sw2;
iw1 with sw2;
iw2 with sw1;

ib2 sb2 | v244@0 v245@1 v246@2;


Would you please tell me if it is appropriate?
 Bengt O. Muthen posted on Monday, May 18, 2015 - 12:28 pm
This looks ok assuming the 2 sets of outcomes are lagged in time. I don't understand why your Between level specification is for only 1 of the 2 processes.
Back to top
Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message