Tracing the Interpersonal Web of Psychopathology: Dyadic Data Analysis Methods for Clinical Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in dyadic data analysis techniques, which treat the dyad, rather than the individual, as the unit of analysis, offer great potential for clinical researchers studying psychopathology. Accordingly, the present article provides readers with a foundation for understanding how the web of interpersonal processes surrounding psychopathology can be modeled and analyzed. The authors start by describing why the analysis of dyadic behaviour may be particularly important for clinical researchers and how issues of dependence that lie at the heart of dyadic data may be productively studied. Next, they describe design issues to consider when studying the interactions of dyads, as well as different kinds of outcome and predictor variables and their data-analytic implications. They introduce the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM), and explain in detail how to estimate it using structural equation modeling (SEM) for both distinguishable and indistinguishable dyads. Extensions of the basic APIM to allow for moderation and mediation, as well as alternative dyadic models involving dyadic latent variables are also covered. Toward the end of the article, the authors describe various approaches for incorporating psychopathology into dyadic SEMs and provide a list of basic questions for clinical researchers to consider when setting up a dyadic model for data analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.088 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".