Department of Psychology, University of Zurich.
Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 May;17(3):884-894. doi: 10.1177/17456916211008407. Epub 2021 Nov 5.
Advances in methods for longitudinal data collection and analysis have prompted a surge of research on psychological processes. However, decisions about how to time assessments are often not explicitly tethered to theories about psychological processes but are instead justified on methodological (e.g., power) or practical (e.g., feasibility) grounds. In many cases, methodological decisions are not explicitly justified at all. The disconnect between theories about processes and the timing of assessments in longitudinal research has contributed to misspecified models, interpretive errors, mixed findings, and nonspecific conclusions. In this article, we argue that higher demands should be placed on researchers to connect theories to methods in longitudinal research. We review instances of this disconnect and offer potential solutions as they pertain to four general questions for longitudinal researchers: how time should be scaled, how many assessments are needed, how frequently assessments should occur, and when assessments should happen.
方法上的进步,用于纵向数据收集和分析,促使对心理过程的研究激增。然而,关于如何安排评估时间的决策通常没有明确地与心理过程理论联系起来,而是基于方法论(例如,权力)或实际(例如,可行性)理由进行辩护。在许多情况下,根本没有明确证明方法论决策的合理性。纵向研究中关于过程的理论与评估时间之间的脱节导致了模型指定不当、解释错误、混合发现和非特异性结论。在本文中,我们认为,应该对研究人员提出更高的要求,将理论与纵向研究中的方法联系起来。我们回顾了这种脱节的实例,并提供了潜在的解决方案,这些解决方案涉及纵向研究的四个一般问题:时间应该如何缩放、需要多少次评估、评估应该多频繁进行以及评估应该何时进行。