Abstract:The random‐intercept cross‐lagged panel model (RI‐CLPM) and the monozygotic twin difference cross‐lagged panel model (MZD‐CLPM) are intended to improve the ability of researchers to draw causal inference. In both the MZD‐CLPM and the RI‐CLPM behavioural problems at age 9 resulted in higher levels of maladaptive parenting at age 12. In light of the triangulated methods, differences in the results obtained using the MZD‐CLPM and the RI‐CLPM underline the importance of careful consideration of what sources of unmeasured confounding different models control for and that nuance is required when interpreting findings using such models. Background In this study we compare results obtained when applying the monozygotic twin difference cross‐lagged panel model (MZD‐CLPM) and a random intercept cross‐lagged panel model (RI‐CLPM) to the same data. Each of these models is designed to strengthen researchers' ability to draw causal inference from cross‐lagged associations. We explore differences and similarities in how each model does this, and in the results each model produces. Specifically, we examine associations between maladaptive parenting and child emotional and behavioural problems in identical twins aged 9, 12 and 16. Method Child reports of 5698 identical twins from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS) were analysed. We ran a regular CLPM to anchor our findings within the current literature, then applied the MZD‐CLPM and the RI‐CLPM. Results The RI‐CLPM and MZD‐CLPM each enable researchers to evaluate the direction of effects between correlated variables, after accounting for unmeasured sources of potential confounding. Our interpretation of these models therefore focusses primarily on the magnitude and significance of cross‐lagged associations. In both the MZD‐CLPM and the RI‐CLPM behavioural problems at age 9 resulted in higher levels of maladaptive parenting at age 12. Other effects were not consistently significant across the two models, although the majority of estimates pointed in the same direction. Conclusion In light of the triangulated methods, differences in the results obtained using the MZD‐CLPM and the RI‐CLPM underline the importance of careful consideration of what sources of unmeasured confounding different models control for and that nuance is required when interpreting findings using such models. We provide an overview of what the CLPM, RI‐CLPM and MZD‐CLPM can and cannot control for in this respect and the conclusions that can be drawn from each model.

A Critique of the Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model

Three Extensions of the Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model

On the Importance of Considering Concurrent Effects in Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Modelling: Example Analysis of Bullying and Internalising Problems

A Comparison of Different Approaches for Estimating Cross-Lagged Effects from a Causal Inference Perspective

Power Analysis for the Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model Using the powRICLPM R-Package

On the Differences between General Cross-Lagged Panel Model and Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model: Interpretation of Cross-Lagged Parameters and Model Choice

Using Instrumental Variables to Measure Causation over Time in Cross-Lagged Panel Models

How to model and interpret cross-lagged effects in psychotherapy mechanisms of change research: A comparison of multilevel and structural equation models.

Longitudinal Analysis in Occupational Health Psychology: A Review and Tutorial of Three Longitudinal Modeling Techniques

Cracking Chicken-Egg Conundrums: Juxtaposing Contemporaneous and Lagged Reciprocal Effects Models of Academic Self-Concept and Achievement's Directional Ordering

Thinking clearly about time-invariant confounders in cross-lagged panel models: A guide for choosing a statistical model from a causal inference perspective.

Directional Ordering of Self-Concept, School Grades, and Standardized Tests Over Five Years: New Tripartite Models Juxtaposing Within- and Between-Person Perspectives

Limitations of Fixed-Effects Models for Panel Data

How to Deal With Reverse Causality Using Panel Data? Recommendations for Researchers Based on a Simulation Study

Latent transition analysis with random intercepts (RI-LTA).

Inference with cross-lagged effects-Problems in time

Likelihood approach to dynamic panel models with interactive effects

Constraints in Random Effects Age-Period-Cohort Models

Estimating Time-Varying Direct and Indirect Causal Excursion Effects with Longitudinal Binary Outcomes

Comparing findings from the random‐intercept cross‐lagged panel model and the monozygotic twin difference cross‐lagged panel model: Maladaptive parenting and offspring emotional and behavioural problems

To detrend, or not to detrend, that is the question? The effects of detrending on cross-lagged effects in panel models.