Conditions for the Equivalence of the Autoregressive Latent Trajectory Model and a Latent Growth Curve Model With Autoregressive Disturbances

By E. Hamaker. 2005

68 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a8526f7c05e49de044f4a8e3100dd1418a880fd4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Satoshi Usami
2. T. Asparouhov
3. B. Muthén
4. Raoul P. P. P. Grasman
5. Rebecca M. Kuiper
6. E. Hamaker
7. Daniel L. Oberski
8. Deana Desa

In Statistics and Probability

1. T. Asparouhov
2. B. Muthén
3. Satoshi Usami
4. Alexandre J. S. Morin
5. Raoul P. P. P. Grasman
6. Rebecca M. Kuiper
7. E. Hamaker
8. Herbert W. Marsh

Citations in the corpus

• A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. (2015, methodology): “If the first model proves untenable however, the researcher should identify the source of misfit, and consider freeing certain means (as we did in the empirical applications included in this article), or use an alternative modeling approach such as LGC or ALT modeling (Hamaker, 2005).”
• Dynamic Structural Equation Models (2018, methodology): “Another covariate for which the indirect and direct model become statistically equivalent is when Xt ¼ t; that is, the linear growth model (see Hamaker, 2005).”
• On the Differences between General Cross-Lagged Panel Model and Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model: Interpretation of Cross-Lagged Parameters and Model Choice (2020, methodology): “Hamaker (2005) compared the ALT model and the LCM-SR, and McArdle (2009) explained that the LGM (or, latent curve model: LCM) is a special version of the LCS model.”