
Message/Author 


I ran 2 models in which I am looking at the change between anxiety and depression symptoms in the context of a treatment study. I ran the model twice where the flow of change goes from anxiety and depression (effects from anxiety at post to depression at post; and anxiety at followup to depression at followup and then viceversa). I get a negative sign from anxiety at post to depression at followup and from depression at post to anxiety at followup. Both lagged effects are negative in sign. I am confussed because the contemporeneous effects from anx to dep and dep to anx at post and followup are positive in sign and the lagged effects negative. Does the negative sign for the lagged effects makes sense?? I pasted part of the output with one of the models wihout covariates. RCMASFU ON RCMAS 0.118 0.168 CDI 0.142 0.095 RCMASPO 0.401 0.000 CDIPO 0.047 0.688 CDIPO ON CDI 0.304 0.001 RCMASPO 0.521 0.000 RCMAS 0.080 0.325 CDIFU ON CDI 0.004 0.953 RCMAS 0.009 0.904 CDIPO 0.474 0.000 RCMASPO 0.276 0.028 RCMASFU 0.635 0.000 RCMASPO ON RCMAS 0.414 0.000 CDI 0.065 0.427 


I should say that I am not sure of the interpretation, not the actual syntax or running the data. I don't know if the negative sign means that lower levels of anxiety at post (RCMASPO = .27, p < .001)) predict higher or more changes in depression from post to followup (CDIFU ON CDIPO) or if It is actually the opposite where I would say that changes in anxiety from pre to post (RCMASPO ON RCMAS) work their way up to predict changes in depression from post to followup, but this will actually be less (more change in anxiety, less change in depression). The former makes sense, but not the latter interpretation, hence why I am not sure what to make of the negative sign. 


This general interpretation question is better suited for the SEMNET discussion list. Include information about the contemperaneous correlation between the two processes. 

Back to top 

