TY - JOUR
T1 - Affect and Personality
T2 - Ramifications of Modeling (Non-)Directionality in Dynamic Network Models
AU - Park, Jonathan J.
AU - Chow, Sy Miin
AU - Fisher, Zachary F.
AU - Molenaar, Peter C.M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Hogrefe Publishing GmbH. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/11
Y1 - 2020/11
N2 - The use of dynamic network models has grown in recent years. These models allow researchers to capture both lagged and contemporaneous effects in longitudinal data typically as variations, reformulations, or extensions of the standard vector autoregressive (VAR) models. To date, many of these dynamic networks have not been explicitly compared to one another. We compare three popular dynamic network approaches – GIMME, uSEM, and LASSO gVAR – in terms of their differences in modeling assumptions, estimation procedures, statistical properties based on a Monte Carlo simulation, and implications for affect and personality researchers. We found that all three dynamic network approaches provided yielded group-level empirical results in partial support of affect and personality theories. However, individual-level results revealed a great deal of heterogeneity across approaches and participants. Reasons for discrepancies are discussed alongside these approaches’ respective strengths and limitations.
AB - The use of dynamic network models has grown in recent years. These models allow researchers to capture both lagged and contemporaneous effects in longitudinal data typically as variations, reformulations, or extensions of the standard vector autoregressive (VAR) models. To date, many of these dynamic networks have not been explicitly compared to one another. We compare three popular dynamic network approaches – GIMME, uSEM, and LASSO gVAR – in terms of their differences in modeling assumptions, estimation procedures, statistical properties based on a Monte Carlo simulation, and implications for affect and personality researchers. We found that all three dynamic network approaches provided yielded group-level empirical results in partial support of affect and personality theories. However, individual-level results revealed a great deal of heterogeneity across approaches and participants. Reasons for discrepancies are discussed alongside these approaches’ respective strengths and limitations.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099757651&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85099757651&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1027/1015-5759/a000612
DO - 10.1027/1015-5759/a000612
M3 - Article
C2 - 34140761
AN - SCOPUS:85099757651
SN - 1015-5759
VL - 36
SP - 1009
EP - 1023
JO - European Journal of Psychological Assessment
JF - European Journal of Psychological Assessment
IS - 6
ER -