Search

Network analysis of ESM data has become popular in clinical psychology. In this approach, discrete-time (DT) vector auto-regressive (VAR) models define the network structure with centrality measures used to identify intervention targets. However, VAR models suffer from time-interval dependency. Continuous-time (CT) models have been suggested as an alternative but require a conceptual shift, implying that DT-VAR parameters reflect total rather than direct effects. In this paper, we propose and illustrate a CT network approach using CT-VAR models. We define a new network representation and develop centrality measures which inform intervention targeting. This methodology is illustrated with an ESM dataset.

This article describes some potential uses of Bayesian estimation for time-series and panel data models by incorporating information from prior probabilities (i.e., priors) in addition to observed data. Drawing on econometrics and other literatures we illustrate the use of informative "shrinkage" or "small variance" priors (including so-called "Minnesota priors") while extending prior work on the general cross-lagged panel model (GCLM). Using a panel dataset of national income and subjective well-being (SWB) we describe three key benefits of these priors. First, they shrink parameter estimates toward zero or toward each other for time-varying parameters, which lends additional support for an income → SWB effect that is not supported with maximum likelihood (ML). This is useful because, second, these priors increase model parsimony and the stability of estimates (keeping them within more reasonable bounds) and thus improve out-of-sample predictions and interpretability, which means estimated effect should also be more trustworthy than under ML. Third, these priors allow estimating otherwise under-identified models under ML, allowing higher-order lagged effects and time-varying parameters that are otherwise impossible to estimate using observed data alone. In conclusion we note some of the responsibilities that come with the use of priors which, departing from typical commentaries on their scientific applications, we describe as involving reflection on how best to apply modeling tools to address matters of worldly concern. ispartof: FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY vol:12 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in which participants report on their moment-to-moment experiences in their natural environment, is a hot topic. An emerging field in clinical psychology based on either EMA, or what we term Ecological Retrospective Assessment (ERA) as it requires retrospectivity, is the field of personalized feedback. In this field, EMA/ERA-data-driven summaries are presented to participants with the goal of promoting their insight in their experiences. Underlying this procedure are some fundamental assumptions about (i) the relation between true moment-to-moment experiences and retrospective evaluations of those experiences, (ii) the translation of these experiences and evaluations to different types of data, (iii) the comparison of these different types of data, and (iv) the impact of a summary of moment-to-moment experiences on retrospective evaluations of those experiences. We argue that these assumptions deserve further exploration, in order to create a strong evidence-based foundation for the personalized feedback procedure.

In recent years, a growing chorus of researchers have argued that psychological theory is in a state of crisis: theories are rarely developed in a way that indicates an accumulation of knowledge and they are often absent from our research entirely. More than 40 years ago, Paul Meehl raised these very concerns. Yet, in the ensuing decades, little has improved. We aim to chart a better path forward for psychological theory by revisiting Meehl's criticisms, his proposed solution, and the reasons his solution failed to meaningful change the status of psychological theory. We argue that Meehl identified serious shortcomings in our evaluation of psychological theories and that his proposed solution would substantially strengthen theory testing. However, we also argue that he failed to provide researchers a set of tools for theory construction. To advance psychological theory, we must equip researchers with tools to better generate, evaluate, and develop their theories. We argue that formal theories provide this much needed set of tools, equipping researchers with tools for thinking, evaluating explanation, informing theory development, strengthening measurement, and moving toward collaborative construction of psychological theories that allow us to explain, predict, and control psychological phenomena.

There has been a strong increase in the number of studies based on intensive longitudinal data, such as those obtained with experience sampling and daily diaries. These data contain a wealth of information regarding the dynamics of processes as they unfold within individuals over time. In this article, we discuss how combining intensive longitudinal data with either time-series analysis, which consists of modeling the temporal dependencies in the data for a single individual, or dynamic multilevel modeling, which consists of using a time-series model at Level 1 to describe the within-person process while allowing for individual differences in the parameters of these processes at Level 2, has led to new insights in clinical psychology. In addition, we discuss several methodological and statistical challenges that researchers face when they are interested in studying the dynamics of psychological processes using intensive longitudinal data.