Dyadic Data Analysis

By David A. Kenny, Deborah Kashy, W. Cook. 2006

1,692 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dcd9a871ef140da3f616ece74aa299dab3b75157

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Gender Differences in Marital Satisfaction: A Meta-analysis (2014, background): “51) clearly demonstrate the necessity of using appropriate statistical models, such as multilevel modeling, to account for dyadic interaction effects (Kenny et al., 2006).”
Employee and Coworker Idiosyncratic Deals: Implications for Emotional Exhaustion and Deviant Behaviors (2018, methodology): “According to Kenney and colleagues (Kenny et al., 2006; Olsen & Kenny, 2006), when the dyad members can be treated as indistinguishable (i.e., no role effect), model fit indices require adjustment.”
Attachment styles as predictors of Facebook‐related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relationships (2013, methodology): “Because dyadic data allows for random intercepts but not random slopes (Kenny et al., 2006), we conducted random intercept-only models.”
Hidden costs of hiding stigma: Ironic interpersonal consequences of concealing a stigmatized identity in social interactions (2014, methodology): “…negative expectations in anticipation of the interaction, with dyad as the unit of analysis and the second factor varying within-dyad (see Kenny et al., 2006), revealed a nonsignificant main effect of Condition, p = .178, a significant main effect of Participant, F(1, 40) = 5.97, p =…”
Beware the angry leader: Trait anger and trait anxiety as predictors of petty tyranny ☆ (2013, methodology): “Larger teams would therefore be desirable, but similar analyses have been conducted with even smaller team sizes, namely with dyads (Kenny et al., 2006).”
Empathic Accuracy, Meta-Perspective, and Satisfaction in the Coach-Athlete Relationship (2009, background): “Kenny et al. (2006) drew attention to the fact that structural equation modeling allows for the testing of an entire model as opposed to examining individual coefficients, meaning both partners can be examined simultaneously.”