Message/Author 


Hello Drs Muthen, I specified a crosslagged model using MLR with two waves and 5 variables (1 = manifest, continuous + 4 = latent factors assuming strong measurement invariance). This model and moderations by age and gender (via multigroup) worked fine. I was asked to rerun this model including only manifest, binary variables to assess the clinical meaningfulness. I'm wondering if it's adequate to specify such a model? If yes, is this specification done properly using WLSMV: X1 ON SES; X24 ON age gender SES; Y1 ON SES; Y24 ON age gender SES; X1 WITH X2 X3 X4 X5; X2 WITH X3 X4 X5; X3 WITH X4 X5; X4 WITH X5; Y1 WITH Y2@0 X3@0 X4@0 X5@0; Y2 WITH Y3@0 X4@0 X5@0; Y3 WITH Y4@0 X5@0; Y4 WITH Y5@0; Y2 ON X2 X1; Y1 ON X1 X2; Y3 ON X3 X1; Y1 ON X1 X3; Y4 ON X4 X1; Y1 ON X1 X4; Y5 ON X5 X1; Y1 ON X1 X5; In addition, would you recommend allowing correlations between manifest variables at t2. Thanks for your help in advance and kind regards! 


Looks ok although I don't understand the argument for dichotomizing to study clinical significance. Regarding correlating variables as t2, I would discuss on SEMNET. 


Thank you for your quick response. The variables assessed can be categorized into "normal" vs. "abnormal" scores on the basis of recommended cutoff scores for clinical diagnoses. 


Dear Drs. Muthen, I specified a crosslagged panel model between three variables (X, Y, Z) and I have 5 time points. The participants come from two datasets and I would like to adjust the model for 2 confounding variables, age and the dataset. I am confused where I add these two confounders in my model. Do I add them to all the paths (Y2 on X1 Z1 age dataset; Y3 on X2 Z2 age dataset; etc)? Or only the association between these confounders and X Y Z at the first measurement (X1 on age dataset; Y1 age dataset; Z1 age dataset; Y2 on X1 Z1; Y3 on X2 Z2; etc.)? Or something completely else? Kind regards, Lisa 


Use the RICLPM and let the age and data set dummy influence the random intercepts. See http://www.statmodel.com/RICLPM.shtml 


Thank you for your suggestion. Two of the three main variables in my model are dichotomous. Is the RICLPM also possible with dichotomous variables? And if so, do I have to change something to the syntax (other than stating these variables as categorical). Kind regards, Lisa 


Which of your variables are dichotomous? RICLPM with categorical DVs needs special considerations and is perhaps more of a methods research topic at this point. 


Out of the three variables that are measured 5 times, XYZ, are X and Y dichotomous. Z is continuous. For the two confounders (age and cohort): age is continuous and cohort is dichotomous. 


Sounds like 2 of your 3 DVs that are repeatedly measured are dichotomous. You are then in a methods research area where the RI aspect of the RICLPM is the issue. 


Oh, that's a pity. I dichotomized those two repeatedly measured DV's because there were no linear relations (thus the linearity assumption was violated). If I would specify a CLPM without the RI, thus an oldfashioned CLPM, how would you than suggest that I correct my model for these two confounder? Kind regards, Lisa 


I would as you say add them to all the paths (Y2 on X1 Z1 age dataset; Y3 on X2 Z2 age dataset; etc) 


Thank you, I have added the confounding variables to all the paths. This is my syntax: VARIABLE: NAMES = id cohort Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 age sex ; MISSING IS ALL (99); IDVARIABLE = id; USEVARIABLES ARE cohort age X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5; CATEGORICAL = Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 X2 X3 X4 X5; ANALYSIS: type=general; parameterization=THETA; MODEL: ! Estimate the covariance between the observed variables at the first wave Z1 with X1 Y1; Y1 with X1; ! Estimate the covariances between the residuals of the observed variables Z2 with Y2 X2; Y2 with X2; Z3 with Y3 X3; Y3 with X3; Z4 with Y4 X4; Y4 with X4; Z5 with Y5 X5; Y5 with X5; ! Estimate the lagged effects between the observed variables Z2 ON Z1 Y1 X1 cohort age; Z3 ON Z2 Y2 X2 cohort age; Z4 ON Z3 Y3 X3 cohort age; Z5 ON Z4 Y4 X4 cohort age; X2 on Z1 Y1 X1 cohort age; X3 ON Z2 Y2 X2 cohort age; X4 ON X3 Z3 Y3 cohort age; X5 ON X4 Z4 Y4 cohort age; Y2 ON Y1 Z1 X1 cohort age; Y3 ON Y2 Z2 X2 cohort age; Y4 ON Y3 Z3 X3 cohort age; Y5 ON Y4 Z4 X4 cohort age; I checked with MOD INDICES if there would be interesting suggestions to improve the model. These included ON statements between the 3 DV's at the first measurement and the confounders, such as: X1 ON AGE; Z1 ON COHORT; Z1 ON AGE; etc. I find it difficult to determine if this makes sense in a CLPM. What would you suggest? 


I would regress Y1, X1, Z1 on all the confounding variables because the latter are background variables. 


Dear Profs Muthén, I am estimating a crosslagged model with 4 time points. The model fit is poor. The modindices command suggest that I add additional on statements between x4, x3, x2 and x1, and y4, y3, y2 and y1, respectively: x4 on x2 x1; x3 on x1; y4 on y2 y1; y3 on y1; does it make sense to add these paths? Can I still interpret the crosslagged effects similarly with these paths included in the model? Thank you very much in advance and kind regards. 


I would recommend that you first try an RICLPM. See http://www.statmodel.com/RICLPM.shtml 

Back to top 