Optimizing Detection of True Within-Person Effects for Intensive Measurement Designs: A Comparison of Multilevel SEM and Unit-Weighted Scale Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensive repeated measurement designs are frequently used to investigate within-person variation over relatively brief intervals of time. The majority of research utilizing these designs rely on unit-weighted scale scores, which assume that the constructs are measured without error. An alternative approach makes use of multilevel structural equation models (MSEM), which permit the specification of latent variables at both within-person and between-person levels. These models disaggregate measurement error from systematic variance, which should result in less biased within-person estimates and larger effect sizes. Differences in power, precision, and bias between multilevel unit-weighted and MSEM models were compared through a series of Monte Carlo simulations. Results based on simulated data revealed that precision was consistently poorer in the MSEM models than the unit-weighted models, particularly when reliability was low. However, the degree of bias was considerably greater in the unit-weighted model than the latent variable model. Although the unit-weighted model consistently underestimated the effect of a covariate, it generally had similar power relative to the MSEM model due to the greater precision. Considerations for scale development and the impact of within-person reliability are highlighted.
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 | 0.153 | 0.502 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".