Longitudinal design considerations to optimize power to detect variances and covariances among rates of change: Simulation results based on actual longitudinal studies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the power to detect variances and covariances in rates of change in the context of existing longitudinal studies using linear bivariate growth curve models. Power was estimated by means of Monte Carlo simulations. Our findings show that typical longitudinal study designs have substantial power to detect both variances and covariances among rates of change in a variety of cognitive, physical functioning, and mental health outcomes. We performed simulations to investigate the interplay among number and spacing of occasions, total duration of the study, effect size, and error variance on power and required sample size. The relation between growth rate reliability (GRR) and effect size to the sample size required to detect power greater than or equal to .80 was nonlinear, with rapidly decreasing sample sizes needed as GRR increases. The results presented here stand in contrast to previous simulation results and recommendations (Hertzog, Lindenberger, Ghisletta, & von Oertzen, 2006; Hertzog, von Oertzen, Ghisletta, & Lindenberger, 2008; von Oertzen, Ghisletta, & Lindenberger, 2010), which are limited due to confounds between study length and number of waves, error variance with growth curve reliability, and parameter values that are largely out of bounds of actual study values. Power to detect change is generally low in the early phases (i.e., first years) of longitudinal studies but can substantially increase if the design is optimized. We recommend additional assessments, including embedded intensive measurement designs, to improve power in the early phases of long-term longitudinal studies.
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 | 0.101 | 0.370 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".