Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

On the Definition of Latent-State-Trait Models With Autoregressive Effects

Insights From LST-R Theory

Published Online:September 20, 2017https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000435

Abstract

Abstract. In longitudinal studies with short time lags, classical models of latent state-trait (LST) theory that assume no carry-over effects between neighboring occasions of measurement are often inappropriate, and have to be extended by including autoregressive effects. The way in which autoregressive effects should be defined in LST models is still an open question. In a recently published revision of LST theory (LST-R theory), Steyer, Mayer, Geiser, and Cole (2015) stated that the trait-state-occasion (TSO) model (Cole, Martin, & Steiger, 2005), one of the most widely applied LST models with autoregressive effects, is not an LST-R model, implying that proponents of LST-R theory might recommend not to apply the TSO model. In the present article, we show that a version of the TSO model can be defined on the basis of LST-R theory and that some of its restrictions can be reasonably relaxed. Our model is based on the idea that situational effects can change time-specific dispositions, and it makes full use of the basic idea of LST-R theory that dispositions to react to situational influences are dynamic and malleable. The latent variables of the model have a clear meaning that is explained in detail.

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cole, D. A., Martin, N. C. & Steiger, J. H. (2005). Empirical and conceptual problems with longitudinal trait-state models: Introducing a trait-state-occasion model. Psychological Methods, 10, 3–20. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ebner-Priemer, U. W., Kuo, J., Kleindienst, N., Welch, S. S., Reisch, T., Reinhard, I., … Bohus, M. (2007). State affective instability in borderline personality disorder assessed by ambulatory monitoring. Psychological Medicine, 37, 961–970. doi: 10.1017/S003329170600970 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eid, M., Courvoisier, D. S. & Lischetzke, T. (2012). Structural equation modeling of ambulatory assessment data. In M. R. MehlT. S. ConnorEds., Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 384–406). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M. & Grasman, R. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20, 102–116. doi: 10.1037/a0038889 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kenny, D. A. & Zautra, A. (1995). The trait-state-error model for multiwave data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 52–59. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.63.1.52 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kenny, D. A. & Zautra, A. (2001). Trait-state models for longitudinal data. In L. M. CollinsA. G. SayerEds., New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 243–263). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Prenoveau, J. M. (2016). Specifying and interpreting latent state-trait models with autoregression: An illustration. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 731–749. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2016.1186550 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Siever, L. J., Torgersen, S., Gunderson, J. G., Livesley, W. J. & Kendler, K. S. (2002). The borderline diagnosis III: Identifying endophenotypes for genetic studies. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 964–968. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01326-4 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Steyer, R. (1988). Experiment, Regression und Kausalität. Die logische Struktur kausaler Regressionsmodelle [Experiment, regression, and causality. The logical structure of causal regression models]. Trier, Germany: Habilitation thesis, University of Trier. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Steyer, R., Ferring, D. & Schmitt, M. J. (1992). States and traits in psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 79–98. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Steyer, R., Mayer, A., Geiser, C. & Cole, D. A. (2015). A theory of states and traits – Revised. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 71–98. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153719 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Steyer, R. & Schmitt, T. (1994). The theory of confounding and its application in causal modeling with latent variables. In A. von EyeC. C. CloggEds., Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 36–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Steyer, R., Schmitt, M. & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state-trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 389–408. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5<389::AID-PER361>3.0.CO;2-A First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Steyer, R., Schwenkmezger, P., Notz, P. & Eid, M. (1997). Der Mehrdimensionale Befindlichkeitsfragebogen (MDBF) [Multidimensional Mood Questionnaire]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wilhelm, P. & Schoebi, D. (2007). Assessing mood in daily life – Structural validity, sensitivity to change, and reliability of a short-scale to measure three basic dimensions of mood. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 258–267. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.23.4.258 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar