I've tried the syntax below provided in the Mplus guide, and it works well. The output/findings are quite similar to SPSS, which makes sense. As you can see, I've removed the "between" part of the model to focus on the within-person effects. DATA: FILE = Datab2.dat; VARIABLE:...
However, if I just leave my indicators in the within option part without being group-mean centred (otherwise I get an error as they are indicators of a within latent variable) would this between person variability would be controlled for? I am not sure how else would I be able to control...
(2000). Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analysis: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24, 882-891. (#85) Muthén, B. & Shedden, K. (1999). Finite mixture modeling with mixture outcomes using the EM algorithm....
Piecewise LGM v1@1v2@1v3@1v4@1v5@1; At this point I have tried many models and have large standardized residuals with each model, except one that may not be identified. The best-fitting model is a 3-piece piecewise:
a) if it were significant this would probably mean that a person with a high intercept also has a high upturn towards the end. b) when the initial decline is steeper, the ending upturn is higher. anonymous posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 3:20 pm Hello, I conducted a conditi...
So you are predicting from the level where the person is at that point, not how he got there (so not a function of the slope, steep or not steep). If you want to predict from the shape of how a person got to where he is, it is probably better to use growth mixture modeling ...
For a latent growth curve model with MPLUS, would it be the same than using this syntax : y3@2... y1 on x1 (1); y2 on x2 (1); y3 on x3 (1); ... and thus constraining the beta parameter to be the same through time?
I have a very similar problem to the person above. I also want to run a twolevel mediation model. I however have x1, x2, x3 and they are all mediated by the same m to two dependent variables y1 and y2. So my model is: WITHIN m on x1 x2 x3 y1 on m x1 x2 x3 y2 on m...
, it seems that it would be important to know the reliability of the latent mean achievement at the teacher level. It is possible that the test information function at level 2 may be very different from the test information function at level 1, which would suggest that the same measures ...
all Level-1 variables are subjected to implicit, model-based group mean centering by default unless constraints are applied to the model." I'm wondering how to interpret the within person effects for a binary X -> M or X -> Y given the model-based person mean centering Preacher describes...