Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data

Gabriel Olaru1, Alexander Robitzsch2,3, Andrea Hildebrandt4, & Ulrich Schroeders5

1
Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, Netherlands
2
IPN − Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Kiel, Germany
3
Centre for International Student Assessment (ZIB), Germany
4
Psychological Methods and Statistics, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany
5
Psychological Assessment, University of Kassel, Germany

This is a preprint version of a book chapter submitted for publication.

.
 Abstract
In this chapter, we discuss how a combination of longitudinal modeling and local structural
equation modeling (LSEM) can be used to study how students’ context influence their growth
in educational achievement. LSEM is a nonparametric approach that allows for the
moderation of a structural equation model over a continuous variable (e.g., socio-economic
status; cultural identity; age). Thus, it does not require the categorization of continuous
moderators as applied in multi-group approaches. In contrast to regression-based approaches,
it does not impose a particular functional form (e.g., linear) on the mean-level differences and
can spot differences in the variance-covariance structure. LSEM can be used to detect
nonlinear moderation effects, to examine sources of measurement invariance violations, and
to study moderation effects on all parameters in the model. We showcase how LSEM can be
implemented with longitudinal of the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) using the R-
package sirt. In more detail, we examine the effect of parental education on math and reading
competence in secondary school across three measurement occasions, comparing LSEM to
regression based approaches and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. Results provide
further evidence of the strong influence of the educational background of the family. This
chapter offers a new approach to study inter-individual differences in educational
development.

Keywords
Local structural equation modeling, longitudinal models, moderation, math competence,
reading competence, socio-economic status

Funding
This research was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) to
Ulrich Schroeders and Andrea Hildebrandt (SCHR 1591/1-1 and HI 1780/4-1) as part of the
Priority Programme 1646 ‘Education as a Lifelong Process’.
 Introduction

Research on education as a lifelong process often deals with questions addressing the
trajectories of abilities and competencies across the lifetime of individuals (longitudinal
design) or differences between individuals of different ages (cross-sectional design). The
National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) combines both approaches in a multi-cohort
sequence design providing access to high quality, nationally representative, longitudinal data
on educational careers and on the developing competencies of preschoolers, students, and
adults in Germany (Blossfeld et al., 2011). Educational studies are often concerned with
identifying contextual factors (e.g., Hattie, 2009; Sirin, 2005; Watermann & Baumert, 2006)
that might promote or impede learning beyond factors that can be identified on the individual
level (e.g., prior knowledge, self-efficacy, grit).

To understand how such context variables moderate learning, it is vital to incorporate

them adequately into longitudinal data analysis techniques. However, broadly applied
traditional data analysis approaches for examining the influence of context variables in
educational research (multiple regression, differences between extreme groups, etc.) have
several major drawbacks. Regression analytic approaches only focus on mean-level
differences across the covariate. Moderating effects are often studied categorically by
comparing a small number of artificially created groups (e.g., with low vs. high socio-
economic status). Unfortunately, in such multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, it is the
statistical method and not the nature of the observed context variable that determines the way
in which the data analysis is performed. To enrich the methodological toolbox of social and
behavioural scientists, including researchers analysing the intensive longitudinal data of
NEPS, we describe in this chapter a recently developed statistical data analysis technique that
is suitable to examine moderation effects of continuous background variables—local
structural equation models (LSEM; Hildebrandt et al., 2016; Hildebrandt et al., 2009)—and
apply this technique to longitudinal data.

Longitudinal Structural Equation Models

To examine the effects of educational and familiar context on educational trajectories
in a longitudinal structural equation modeling framework, we first aim to set the
methodological ground for the upcoming explanation. We neither elaborate on issues of
assessment such as the need to develop and compile theoretically sound and age-appropriate
measures (for this purpose, see e.g., Coaley, 2014; Embretson & Reise, 2013), nor we detail
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 4

core principles of structural equation modeling (see Hoyle, 2012; Kline, 2015). Also, we refer
the interested reader to excellent and comprehensive textbooks and articles topic (e.g., Little,
2013; McArdle, 2009; Mund & Nestler, 2019), when it comes to in-depth discussions and
applications of structural equation modeling with longitudinal data. Nonetheless, we want to
mention that any longitudinal data analysis within the SEM framework should start by
establishing and scrutinizing the measurement models within each measurement occasion.
The aim is to probe the stability of the measured construct and to spot potential fluctuations in
the factorial structure, which is commonly referred to as measurement invariance testing
(Meredith, 1993, Little et al., 2007). In a subsequent step, the model is extended by specifying
relations across measurement occasions. Structural equation modeling with longitudinal data
has to tackle several modeling decisions, which will be explained in more detail in the
following, including (a) the longitudinal measurement invariance, (b) the scaling of latent
factors, and (c) the choice among different structural models to depict change.

From a measurement point of view, the basic question in longitudinal research is

whether the same construct is being assessed over time. This is known as longitudinal
measurement invariance. Similar to the cross-sectional case (Cheung & Rensvold, 1999;
Meredith, 1993; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000), longitudinal measurement invariance requires
the specification of several parameter constraints (e.g. Little et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2016). In
general, the procedure for testing measurement invariance consists of a sequence of models
with increasingly restrictive constraints on the measurement parameters. As a baseline model,
a model without any constraints is specified, in which only same structure across time is
estimated (i.e., configural invariance). Next, a model with equal factor loadings across time
(i.e. metric invariance) is tested. Finally, in addition to the constrained factor loadings, the
item intercepts are also constrained to equality across time (i.e., scalar invariance). The scalar
level of measurement invariance is required to answer questions concerning mean level
change across time. If introducing additional equality constraints on parameters were to result
in a substantial deterioration of the model fit (e.g., Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002),
the assumption of measurement invariance would have to be discarded.

Factor scaling (also called factor identification) means that a metric needs to be
established for the latent variable (or factor). There are several options for scaling latent
variables. Preferably, the choice of scaling is led by considerations related to parameter
interpretation according to the scientific hypotheses to be addressed. The factor identification
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 5

method in longitudinal modeling also determines the metric in which changes in parameters
across time are expressed and have to be interpreted (see Little et al., 2006). For instance,
when using the reference variable method, in which the factor loading and the item intercept
of a single indicator per factor is constrained to 1 and 0, respectively, the metric of the latent
variable is equivalent to that of the chosen reference indicator. In the case of constraining the
variance of the factor to 1 and its mean to 0 at the first measurement occasion (i.e., reference-
group scaling), factor variances and means at subsequent measurement occasions are
identified and scaled relative to the first measurement occasion. Both scaling methods have
some disadvantages: Differences cannot be interpreted in the original item metric and
constraining the factor mean at the first measurement time point to 0 discards the possibility
of examining factor mean differences across the moderator at baseline. One potential way to
overcome these disadvantages is the so called effects coding method for scaling latent
variables (Little et al., 2006). According to this approach, factors are taken to reflect a
weighted composite of all items (i.e., weighted by the factor loadings). This is implemented
by constraining factor loadings of a common factor to an average of 1 and item intercepts
belonging to the same factor to an average of 0. This procedure allows researchers to estimate
factor means and variances that correspond to the metric of the items at every measurement
occasion.

Finally, there is a wide range of longitudinal modeling approaches from which

researchers are expected to select the one that best fits their analysis objectives (for
overviews, see McArdle, 2009; Mund & Nestler, 2019; Usami et al., 2019). These include
autoregressive models (Selig & Little, 2012), cross-lagged panel models (Mund & Nestler,
2019), change score models (Ferrer & McArdle, 2010), latent growth curve models (McArdle
& Bell, 2000), and their variants. These modeling approaches differ in how they
conceptualize and assess sources of variance (i.e., between-person variance, within-person
variance, and error variance; see Bainter & Howard, 2016). Thus, depending on the specific
research question and the number of time points available, researchers have to select the most
appropriate model: For example, autoregressive models are suitable for testing rank-order
stability and variability across time, whereas change score models are suitable for
investigating general developmental trajectories and individual differences therein. Some
models incorporate both within- and between-persons differences, as well as inter-individual
differences in intra-individual change (e.g., autoregressive latent trajectory model with
structured residuals; Mund & Nestler, 2019).
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 6

For the application described in this chapter, we used a bivariate latent growth curve
model (LGCM; see Figure 1), because we aimed to examine academic achievement and
growth and co-development in two core competencies (math and reading) from 5th to 9th
grade. The focus is on modeling the influence of a contextual variable (educational
background) on the structural parameters. A LGCM allows differentiating between the initial
level of academic competencies (the intercept) and its growth (the slope) across the study
period. Moreover, they are suitable to examine how the initial level is related to subsequent
growth, or how initial values and growth on one competence are associated with the other
competence and its growth. However, the data-analytic methods with respect to the moderator
variable we describe in this chapter can be similarly applied to other families of longitudinal
structural equation models.

Including covariates in a longitudinal structural equation model

The influence of background or context variables on parameters in a longitudinal
model can be examined in various ways. The most broadly used approach is to include the
context variable (e.g., parental SES) as a predictor of all latent variables. Thus, the (linear)
relation of the context variable is accounted for, and factor residuals are interpreted as latent
variables that were adjusted for the influence of the context variable. The downside of this
approach is that it estimates only mean differences in the factor across the covariate.
However, the covariates may also modulate other model parameters such as factor variances
or factor covariances. In many applications, it is highly relevant to examine how individual
differences in covariates are associated with the constructs and their growth, because this will
help understand the processes of development more comprehensively than by examining a
simple mean difference.

To examine the effect of a covariate on other model parameters than the mean, the
covariate needs to be modelled as a moderator, which is often done with multi-group
confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). In MGCFA, differences in model parameter are
tested across a categorical moderator such as gender. For this purpose, model parameters are
typically fixed to equality across groups, and deterioration in model fit is tested following a
straightforward procedure (for a detailed explanation, see Schroeders & Gnambs, 2018).
MGCFAs are widely used and accepted for investigating model parameter differences across
categorical context variables. However, to employ this method for continuous context
variables such as SES, MGCFAs require one to first artificially categorize the context variable
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 7

(e.g., into low vs. high SES groups by median split). But, artificially categorizing a
continuous moderator has several disadvantages (see MacCallum et al., 2002; Preacher et al.,
2005). First, nonlinear trends and complex patterns of moderation effects might be overlooked
if too few groups have been analysed (e.g., Hildebrandt et al. 2016). Second, categorization
results in a loss of any information on individual differences within a given moderator group.
That means, when observations that differ across the range of a continuous variable are
grouped, variation within these groups can no longer be detected. Third, setting cut-offs to
split the distribution of a moderator into several parts is often arbitrary and might severely
affect the results (e.g. Hildebrandt et al 2009; MacCallum et al., 2002).

Local Structural Equation Modeling

In the following, we extend a recently developed method, local structural equation
modeling (LSEM; Hildebrandt et al., 2009; 2016; Olaru et al., 2019), to longitudinal data
aiming to overcome the aforementioned methodological issues. LSEM does not require an
artificial categorization of moderators, renounces a pre-analytical specification of the
relationship between moderator and psychological constructs, and can moderate both the
mean and covariance structure. For these reasons, LSEM provides a very powerful approach
with which to examine educational development across a wide range of background variables.

Next, we explain LSEM along an empirical example, demonstrating how researchers

can examine contextual effects across a wide range of continuous moderators such as socio-
economic status, years of formal education, or cultural embeddedness and a wide variety of
models. LSEM has already been applied successfully to cross-sectional data to examine
structural and mean-level differences in cognitive abilities across age or years of education
(e.g., Gnambs & Schroeders, 2020; Hartung et al., 2018; Hülür et al., 2011; Schroeders et al.,
2015) or to study age-related differences in personality (Olaru et al., 2019; Wagner et al.,
2019). For instance, Wagner and colleagues (2019) and Olaru and Allemand (in press) used a
combination of longitudinal models and LSEM to examine differences in the stability of
personality traits and correlated change across the adult lifespan, respectively. In contrast to
the current gap in the literature for such applications, combining LSEM and longitudinal
SEMs is particularly important in educational research in which a wide range of different
contexts (e.g., class, schools, peers, families) are theorized to have an important impact on the
academic and extracurricular development of students and adults.
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 8

To achieve sufficiently stable parameter estimations, LSEM needs sufficiently large

samples at each potential moderator value. Note that sample size restrictions are often the
reason why naturally continuous moderators are categorized for MGCFA. This is because
estimating a model at each moderator value (e.g., for each SES level) is not possible if only
very few observations are available along single moderator values. As an alternative to
achieve sufficiently stable parameter estimates, LSEM uses a sample weighting function to
include observations from the neighbouring values on the moderator, albeit with smaller
weights. The samples are weighted so that persons close to the targeted moderator value are
weighted more strongly than persons farther away from this point. More specifically, the
weighting function follows a Gaussian kernel function with a maximum of 1 at the focal point
of the moderator considered (e.g., HISCED1 = 6) and increasingly smaller weights for persons
with a larger distance to the relevant moderator value (see Figure 1). This approach assumes
that observations close to each other on the moderator are more similar than distal
observations. Figure 1 shows exemplarily (for three weight functions) that observations at the
focal points receive a weight of 1, whereas observations with increasing distance from a focal
point receive smaller weights. Because the Gaussian kernel function always attains values
larger than zero, all observations will enter all models at each focal point in LSEM; but distant
observations have very small values (below 0.01) resulting in no practical influence on the
model parameter estimation at a given focal point.

Figure 1.
Weighting functions for parental education (HISCED)

1
HISCED is an acronym for highest international standard classification of education.
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 9

After introducing the general idea of LSEM (for more details, see Hildebrandt et al., 2016;
Olaru et al., 2019), we shall now illustrate the usefulness and versatility of the approach for
analysing educational achievement outcomes in combination with contextual factors. More
precisely, we apply LSEM to investigate mean, variance, and covariance differences in math
and reading competencies2 from the 5th to 9th grade of school (Starting Cohort 3; Blossfeld et
al., 2011; doi:10.5157/NEPS:SC3:9.0.0) across educational levels of the family. To model
mean-level performance and growth in the two domains as well as their interaction, we apply
a bivariate latent growth curve model (see Figure 2). Subsequently, we used LSEM to study
the moderating effects of parental education within this model. We also compared the
findings to a model in which the HISCED was included as a linear predictor of the factors,
and to a model in which the HISCED was included as a categorical moderator (i.e., a multi-
group confirmatory factor analysis across a low and high parental education group).

Method
Sample
The following illustration is applied to data from the National Educational Panel Study
(NEPS): Starting Cohort Grade 5 (Blossfeld et al., 2011; doi:10.5157/NEPS:SC3:9.0.0). From
2008 to 2013, NEPS data was collected as part of the Framework Programme for the
Promotion of Empirical Educational Research funded by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (BMBF). As of 2014, NEPS is carried out by the Leibniz Institute for
Educational Trajectories (LIfBi) in cooperation with a nationwide network. Of the Starting
Cohort Grade 5 sample, we used only the 2,037 students who had provided complete data on
math and reading competencies across the three measurement occasions together with their
parents’ education. Gender was balanced (50% female students). The mean age was 10.75
(SD = 0.51) in 5th grade, 12.75 (SD = 0.49) in 7th grade, and 14.92 (SD = 0.46) in 9th grade.
Note that LSEM requires moderator values for each case used for model estimation, but can
account for missing values in the indicators using pairwise estimation, imputed datasets, or
model-based imputation (e.g., full information maximum likelihood; for an overview, see
Lüdtke et al., 2007).3 Because missing values in the data used for this demonstration indicated

2
For similarities and possible differences between the terms ability, skill, competence, and so forth,
please see Schroeders (2018). In the present case, we use the terms synonymously.
3
Note that an imputation model has to be at least as flexible as the analysis model. For LSEM, the
imputation of variables appearing in the SEM should allow relationships among variables to depend
nonlinearly on moderators.
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 10

that some students did not participate in one or more measurement occasions (thus not being
missing at random), we used only cases with full data.

Measures
Mathematical competence.
Mathematical competence in NEPS is a measure of mathematical literacy (OECD, 2009)
requiring students to apply mathematics in realistic everyday situations. It combines content-
related components (i.e., quantity, space, and shape; change and relationships; data and
chance) with process-related components (i.e., applying technical skills, modeling, arguing,
communicating, representing, and problem solving). For instance, the content-related facet of
‘quantity’ ranges from basic arithmetic operations (e.g., adding), over the use of different
units, to simple equation systems. On the process-related side, the component ‘technical
skills’ encompasses using known algorithms and calculation methods. The process
‘representing’ requires students to interpret tables, charts, or graphs, whereas ‘problem
solving’ assesses students’ ability to solve a problem with no obvious solution, typically by
trying, generalizing, or examining exceptional cases.

Reading competence.
Reading competence is conceptualized in NEPS as competent handling of texts in different
typical everyday situations. This operationalization of reading competence is based on the
Anglo-Saxon literacy concept (also see OECD, 2009). The NEPS reading competence test
combines different text forms, tasks, and response formats. Text forms consist of (a) factual
texts (e.g., educational texts), (b) commenting texts (e.g., texts discussing a controversial
question), (c) literary texts (e.g., short stories), (d) instructions (e.g., engineering manuals,
cooking recipes), and (e) advertising texts (e.g., job advertisements, recreational programmes)
for which the lexical, semantic, and grammatical properties have been adapted to fit different
age groups.

The reading comprehension tests require students to fulfil three types of tasks that were
identified based on the reading comprehension literature (e.g., Kintsch, 1998; Richter &
Christmann, 2002). These tasks are specified as (a) ‘finding information in the text’ (e.g.,
identifying information and recognizing statements), (b) ‘drawing text-related conclusions’
(e.g., relating several statements to each other in order to identify general propositions or the
thoughts expressed in the text), and (c) ‘reflecting and assessing’ (e.g., deriving a situation
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 11

model or understanding the central message of the text). Tasks and text forms are combined in
a balanced manner to cover all possible text–task combinations.

Parental education.
We used the international standard classification of education (ISCED) as an indicator of
parental educational levels. The ISCED provides information on educational attainment in
terms of both the highest school certificate and the highest occupational qualification. The
ISCED used in the NEPS study ranges from 0 = no formal education to 10 = doctoral degree.
We used the highest ISCED (HISCED) of both parents at the first measurement occasion as
an indicator of educational levels in the family. If the ISCED was not measured in the first
wave, we used the ISCED from subsequent measurement occasions. The average HISCED in
the sample was 6.60 (SD = 2.55). It remained stable across the four years examined in this
study (i.e., 95% of participants did not change in their value).

Statistical Analysis
Latent growth curve model.
As a starting point for our analyses, we used a bivariate latent growth curve model (LGCM;
McArdle, 2009) on the math and reading competence ability estimates from an item response
model linked across measurement occasions included in the NEPS SC3 dataset (Blossfeld et
al., 2011). We modelled an intercept factor with loadings of 1 on all indicators. For the slope
factor, we constrained the factor loadings to 0 and 1 for the first and the second measurement
occasion respectively, while freely estimating the loading for the third measurement occasion.
In contrast to other LGCM applications, the last slope loading was not constrained to 2 in
order to allow nonlinear growth trajectories across time. All indicator intercepts were fixed to
0, so that factor means could be estimated. We allowed the intercept and slope factors of math
and reading competence to covary. The model was estimated in lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) with
maximum likelihood estimation. The lavaan code for the model specification was as follows
(please note that we use the original variable labels so that readers can replicate our example):
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 12

LGCM <- “
# model intercept and slope factors
math.inter =~ 1*mag5_sc1u + 1*mag7_sc1u + 1*mag9_sc1u
math.slope =~ 0*mag5_sc1u + 1*mag7_sc1u + mag9_sc1u
read.inter =~ 1*reg5_sc1u + 1*reg7_sc1u + 1*reg9_sc1u
read.slope =~ 0*reg5_sc1u + 1*reg7_sc1u + reg9_sc1u

# fix indicator intercepts to 0

mag5_sc1u ~ 0*1
mag7_sc1u ~ 0*1
mag9_sc1u ~ 0*1
reg5_sc1u ~ 0*1
reg7_sc1u ~ 0*1
reg9_sc1u ~ 0*1

# estimate factor means

math.inter ~ 1
math.slope ~ 1
read.inter ~ 1
read.slope ~ 1”

Examining the effect of parental education.

We then compared three different approaches to examining the effect of parental education on
math and reading competence: (a) a model with parental education as a linear predictor of the
factors, (b) a MGCFA across two groups (constructed by median split), and (c) the LSEM
approach. For the first approach, we regressed the intercept and slope factors on the HISCED
(for the commented syntax, please see online supplement https://osf.io/vn297/ ). For the
MGCFA approach aiming to examine differences in all model parameters, we split the sample
into two groups around the median of 8 (participants with HISCED > 7 were allocated to the
group of individuals with higher education) and estimated the model simultaneously for the
two groups without equality constraints across groups.

For LSEM, the lsem.estimate() function has been implemented in the sirt R-package
(Robitzsch, 2019). We moderated the LGCM across HISCED values ranging from 3 to 9 in
steps of 0.25 to provide a more nuanced picture than estimating the models only at full
HISCED values. We excluded values at the borders of the distribution (0, 1, 2, and 10),
because the effective sample size was low for these moderator values. Thus, the symmetric
weighting function used in LSEM would create weighted samples skewed towards the middle
of the distribution (because no participants can be found beyond the extremes; for an
illustration see Olaru et al., 2019). Based on suggestions in the literature (Hildebrandt et al.,
2016), we used a bandwidth parameter of 2. The code used to run LSEM was as follows (for
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 13

more information on the arguments of the function sirt::lsem.estimate, please refer to the
manual or Olaru et al., 2019).
lsem.fit <- sirt::lsem.estimate(
data = mydata,
moderator = 'hisced', # name of moderator
moderator.grid = seq(3,9,.25), # moderator levels
lavmodel = LGCM, # model
h = 2, # bandwidth parameter
residualize = FALSE, # allow mean level differences
meanstructure = TRUE)

# return and plot the results

summary(lsem.fit)
plot(lsem.fit)

Results
The sample size for the baseline model used for the regression-based approach was N = 2,037.
For the MGCFA approach, the sample was split into two groups with n = 922 (low education)
and n = 1,115 (high education). In the LSEM approach, the weighted sample sizes ranged
from n = 479.15 at HISCED = 3 to n = 937.79 at HISCED = 9 (the lowest weighted sample
size was n = 401.77 at HISCED = 6).

Figure 2 shows the bivariate LGCM estimated on the full sample. Baseline performance in
math and reading competence were strongly related (ρ = .81). The intercept factors were
negatively related to growth, indicating that lower-performing students initially showed a
higher increase in the competencies across school years, which is also known as the
compensation effect. The growth of math competency was approximately linear (as indicated
by the second slope factor loading of λ = 2.08), and the growth of reading competence was
slightly smaller from Grade 7 to 9 (second slope factor loading of λ = 1.72).
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 14

Figure 2.
Bivariate latent growth curve model of reading and math competence from Grade 5 to 9.

Note. Numbers show the estimated factor loadings, covariances, and means (triangles) on the
full sample. Numbers in italics represent the standardized parameters; those in bold,
constrained parameters.

Mean level differences

Figure 3 shows mean-level differences in the math and reading intercept and slope factors
across parental education that can be displayed using the generic plot() function on the
LSEM object (note that we also included the MGCFA and regression results in the figures).
The LSEM plots of parameter estimates across parental education show that baseline math
and reading competence are generally higher for students from families with a higher
educational background providing a cognitively stimulating environment. Whereas math
competence also shows a higher growth for these students, the effect seems to be negative for
reading competence. Generally speaking, all three methods indicate the same pattern.
However, the LSEM estimates show that the mean-level differences in the intercept factors
are not perfectly linear across parental education, but have the steepest slope in the mid-range
of the HISCED.
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 15

Figure 3.
Comparison of mean-level differences in mathematical and reading competence across three
different methods.

Note. The dashed black line represents estimates based on the regression model. The black
horizontal lines show estimates in the median-split MGCFA. The dotted black lines represent
LSEM point estimates (i.e. each dot derives from a SEM). The dashed grey lines show the
95% confidence intervals for LSEM estimates.

Differences in Variances and Covariances

The only moderation effect detected on the variance level was for the math intercept factor on
which variance decreased across HISCED levels. Because of space restrictions here, we
refrain from a detailed description, but point out that differences in factor variance might lead
to biased results and should be investigated carefully. Additionally, they can also indicate
meaningful differences in the distribution of inter-individual differences across the moderator.
Concerning the correlations between the intercept and slope factors across parental education
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 16

(see Figure 4), the relation between math and reading growth decreases substantially across
educational levels. This pattern suggests that growth trajectories in both competencies are
more strongly related for students from a lower educational background. However, the large
confidence intervals indicate that this effect might not be significant (for significance tests,
see the section on ‘Testing parameter equivalence’). The relationship between all other factor
combinations remains stable across the HISCED. Again, the MGCFA and LSEM generally
yield the same trends, but LSEM provides a much more detailed picture of the moderating
effect.

Figure 4.
Comparison of factor covariances across parental education for MGCFA and LSEM

Note. Black horizontal lines show the estimates in the median-split MGCFA; dashed black
lines, the linear approximation of the MGCFA differences; dotted black lines, the LSEM point
estimates (i.e. each dot derives from a SEM). The dashed grey lines show the 95% confidence
intervals for the LSEM estimates.
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 17

Testing moderation effects

LSEM is primarily an exploratory method used to uncover potential effects across a
continuous moderator. In general, examining potential moderations should start by examining
the graphs provided by the plot() function on the output of the lsem.estimate() function.
The plotted confidence intervals indicate whether parameter differences may be significant
across the moderator. If point estimates at one moderator value are outside the confidence
intervals at another moderator value, moderation effects can be concluded to be substantial.
However, model parameter equivalence or measurement invariance cannot be tested by
traditional means of inference testing (e.g., χ² difference tests) because the weighted samples
used by LSEM overlap. Hence, alternative methods have been proposed to examine whether
moderation effects are statistically significant: a permutation test (lsem.permutationTest()
function) that has been used previously (Hildebrandt et al., 2016; Hülür et al., 2011;
Schroeders et al., 2015) and joint estimation (setting the argument est_joint = TRUE within
the lsem.estimate() function). The latter method is described for the first time in this
chapter.

The permutation test resembles traditional significance testing approaches in which the
parameter values are tested against a distribution that can be expected to occur because of
sampling error. To create such a distribution, the permutation test creates 1,000 resampled
copies of the dataset (on default settings). Within each dataset, the moderator values are
shuffled around randomly across individuals (Hülür et al., 2011; Jorgensen et al., 2018). This
removes all systematic moderation effects from the data. LSEM is then run on each dataset to
derive the model parameters. This procedure results in a distribution of estimates for each
parameter in which the parameter is independent of the moderator. The original LSEM
parameter estimates are then compared to the corresponding distribution under the null
hypothesis. The permutation test function provides mean average distance, linear slope, and p
values for each model parameter along the moderator. This allows users to identify which
parameters change significantly across the values of the moderator, and whether the shape is
linear or nonlinear. The permutation test can be run in R using the lsem.permutationTest()
function on the lsem.estimate() object:
lsem.perm <- sirt::lsem.permutationTest( # run permutation test
lsem.object = lsem.fit, # lsem.estimate object
B = 1000, # number of permutations
residualize = FALSE) # required for mean-level diff.

summary(lsem.perm) # examine results

Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 18

The permutation test indicated that the reading and math intercept factor means differ
significantly across parental education (see Table 1). As indicated by the significant linear
slope value, the trajectories are approximately linear. The only other parameter that shows a
significant moderation effect is the math intercept factor variance (M = 0.970; mean absolute
distance = 0.131; mean absolute distance p-value = .008; linear slope = -0.066; linear slope p-
value = .006) that decreases linearly across parental education. Whereas the decrease in the
correlation between the growth factors from approximately ρ = .70 to .40 seems substantial,
this effect is not significant, as also indicated by the large confidence intervals (Figure 4).

Table 1.
Results of the permutation test for factors means.
par M SD SD_p MAD MAD_p lin_slo lin_slo_p
math.inter~1 0.235 0.320 0.000 0.306 0.000 0.153 0.000
math.slope~1 0.730 0.016 0.532 0.014 0.547 0.007 0.480
read.inter~1 0.247 0.337 0.000 0.322 0.000 0.161 0.000
read.slope~1 0.687 0.042 0.146 0.036 0.185 -0.015 0.248
Note. MAD = mean absolute distance, lin_slo = linear slope of the parameters across the
moderator, *_p = corresponding global significance values.

Whereas the permutation test can be used to test moderation effects for each parameter
separately, a more global approach of equivalence testing—similar to traditional MGCFA
approaches—using a joint estimation procedure has been implemented recently in the sirt R-
package (Robitzsch, 2019). The joint estimation procedure mirrors the approach used in
MGCFA measurement invariance testing. More specifically, each weighted sample in LSEM
is treated as an independent group. By using a common likelihood function across groups,
parameter estimates can then be derived across all moderator values simultaneously. In
contrast, in the regular LSEM application, models are estimated separately, and parameter
values can be constrained to equivalence only by specifying the values manually in the model.
The joint estimation function allows users to estimate one parameter value across the
moderator instead (if invariance assumptions are desired). Rather than providing model fit
indices for each model across the moderator (e.g., CFI at each moderator level), the joint
estimation procedure will also provide global fit indices (e.g., one global CFI value). By
constraining parameters and examining the resulting model fit differences between the
constrained and unconstrained model, measurement invariance or parameter equivalence in
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 19

general can be evaluated in a similar way to MGCFA procedures. To use the joint estimation
instead, the corresponding argument within the lsem.estimate() function has to be set to
est_joint = TRUE. The resulting output will then correspond to a model with configural
invariance (i.e., all parameters are unconstrained across the weighted samples). To constrain
parameters to equality across the moderator, these need to be specified in the par_invariant
argument. Parameters can also be constrained to follow a linear pattern by specifying the
respective parameters with the par_linear argument. To constrain a parameter, it has to be
included in the aforementioned arguments with the lavaan terminology. For instance,
par_invariant = c("factor1=~item1", "factor1=~item2") will constrain the loadings
of Factor 1 on Item 1 and 2 to equality across the moderator. LSEM will then return only one
value for these parameters. The following code shows how LSEM with joint estimation and
invariant parameters can be run:
lsem.fit.joint <- sirt::lsem.estimate(
data = mydata,
moderator = 'hisced', # name of moderator
moderator.grid = seq(3,9,.25),# focal points
lavmodel = LGCM, # model
h=2, # bandwidth parameter
residualize = FALSE, # allow mean level differences
meanstructure = TRUE,
est_joint = TRUE, # activate joint estimation
par_invariant = c( # which parameters to constrain
"math.slope=~mag9_sc1u", # invariant loading example
"math.slope~1", # invariant mean/intercept
"math.slope~~math.inter", # invariant covariance
"math.slope~~math.slope", # invariant variance
"mag9_sc1u~~mag9_sc1u") # invariant residual
)

summary(lsem.fit.joint) # examine results

The summary() output resembles the standard LSEM output except for global model fit
indices. Both the permutation test and joint estimation can be used to investigate parameter
equivalence, but the approach by which they do so differs between the methods. The strength
of the permutation test is that it provides easy-to-use functionality for testing moderation
effects on each parameter separately. The test results can be interpreted easily because they
provide p values for each parameter moderation effect. The joint estimation procedure
provides a global indication (e.g., CFI or RMSEA differences) of parameter equivalence that
can be used to detect whether sets of parameters (e.g., all factor loadings) are equivalent
across the moderator. Similar to MGCFA measurement invariance testing approaches, this
can be done by comparing the model fit indicators across nested models (e.g., CFI differences
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 20

between nested models should be below a value of .01; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).
Generally, it is advisable to run the permutation test first to identify which parameters are
affected by the moderator. The joint estimation function can be used to impose constraints on
the measurement model to investigate moderation effects in the structural model without
bias—for example, by constraining all factor loadings before examining factor covariances. If
the increase in misfit is too large as a result of the additional constraints, the most problematic
parameters—as indicated by the permutation test—can be freed to achieve partial
measurement invariance. Because both procedures can be used to test moderation effects on
all model parameters, the two approaches can also be used to test invariance beyond
traditional levels of measurement invariance that generally focus on factor loadings, item
intercepts, and item residuals.

Discussion
This chapter illustrated different methodological approaches to the study the influence of
contextual factors on educational achievement longitudinally. Traditional data analytic
approaches—such as controlling for their influence by means of regressions or categorizing a
continuous moderator and using MGCFA—are associated with a number of methodological
limitations. LSEM, however, enables a detailed examination by providing nonlinear
moderation effects on all parameters of a SEM. The readily implemented functions of the sirt
R-package allow educational researchers to scrutinize and test for measurement invariance. In
the current example, we found that at Grade 5, students from families with higher education
were better in math and reading than students from lower educational backgrounds. These
differences due to parental education remained stable up to Grade 9, as indicated by the stable
slope factor means. That is, the initial differences in the students’ math and reading
competencies across educational backgrounds remained stable in secondary school.
Moreover, no moderation effect was found for the relation between initial competencies and
growth. Formal education, however, seemed to help initially less capable students to catch up
(see the stable negative correlations between the intercept and slope factors in both reading
and math; Figure 4), but this effect was similar across all educational backgrounds. On a more
general stance, examining such structural differences in models of educational development is
important to understand the processes underlying education and learning. For instance, one
can assess whether the relation between mother-language competence and other academic
competencies changes as a function of SES or cultural integration. Such an investigation
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 21

would help to understand which students’ language competence acquisition needs to be

supported to improve knowledge in other academic fields.

Extensions of the LSEM method

The nonparametric influence of moderators on parameters has a long tradition in varying
coefficient regression models (Park et al., 2015). However, the principle of local estimation
based on weights can be applied to any other model class that allows the use of sampling
weights such as multilevel models (Wu & Tian, 2018), item response models, latent class
models, mixture models, or survival models, to name a few. For longitudinal data,
continuous-time models (Voelkle et al., 2012) are particularly attractive alternatives to the
discrete-time models that were discussed in this chapter. In our empirical application, we also
focused on only one moderator variable. Multiple moderator variables can be handled by
replacing the unidimensional Gaussian kernel function for computing the weights with a
multivariate Gaussian kernel function (see Hartung et al., 2018, for such an application). With
many moderators, such an approach would lead to very sparse data, because only a few
combinations of values would be available for multiple moderator values. Moreover, the
interpretation of LSEM findings would be intricate in the multidimensional setting. One
possibility would be to assume that only a subset of moderators affects a particular parameter.
Essentially, this means that this parameter would be invariant with respect to the
complementary set of moderators. This strategy can be implemented by using the joint
estimation approach (see section ‘Testing moderation effects’). Bolsinova and Molenaar
(2019) discuss an LSEM application in which each item has its own moderator. They
circumvent the problem of high dimensionality in the estimation by proposing an alternative
estimation algorithm (Bolsinova & Molenaar, 2019). In their model, the set of parameters is
partitioned into subsets that depend on only one moderator variable (i.e. all parameters
referring to an item depend only on the moderator corresponding to this item). The LSEM
estimation is conducted by cycling through conditional estimation steps concerning the
subsets of item parameters. Thereby only one subset of parameters is estimated, while holding
all other parameters fixed. This principle can be generalized to LSEM applications with
multiple moderators. This then results in an additive nonparametric model for the moderated
parameter functions.
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 22

In the present demonstration, we used the HISCED at the first measurement occasion as a
moderator that differs between participants but not within participants (i.e., across time).
Because the HISCED values changed for only about 5% of the sample across the four years
examined in this study, treating it as time-invariant was, in our opinion, a reasonable
approximation. However, when using NEPS cohorts with younger participants (e.g.,
newborns and Kindergarten) and moderators with potentially stronger fluctuations across time
(e.g., parental involvement; SES), the moderator values for each participant may change
across time. It seems reasonable for model parameters referring to a particular time point to
depend only on the moderator variable at this time point, as is done in the approach by
Bolsinova & Molenaar (2019). For example, in a latent growth curve model, residual
variances at a time point should depend only on the moderator assessed at this time point.
However, it is less clear how intercept and slope variances depend on the time-varying
moderator variables. One could argue that they depend only on the mean across time of the
time-varying moderators, but they could alternatively depend on a measure of within-subject
variability of the moderator or even depend on the moderator variables at all time points.

Alternative Modeling Approaches

Occasionally, the LSEM approach is computationally demanding, especially in cases with
large models or more than one moderator variable. Alternatively, a computationally more
parsimonious approach based on individual parameter contribution regressions (IPC) can be
used to investigate relationships of model parameters to moderators (Arnold et al., 2019;
Oberski, 2013). Both nonparametric approaches, LSEM and IPC, can be utilized to
investigate whether a parametric approach such as moderated factor analysis (MFA) can be
used (Hessen & Dolan, 2009; Molenaar et al., 2010; but see also Hildebrandt et al., 2016, for
a comparison). MFA allows for the inclusion of single or multiple parameter moderation
effects in a structural equation model. For example, Molenaar and colleagues (2010) used it to
study differentiation in a higher-order model of intelligence by examining moderation effects
of age and ability levels on the factor and residual variances. MFA has the advantage that the
test of moderation effects and model comparisons follows standard maximum likelihood or
Bayesian theory. For example, moderation effects can be tested using χ2-difference tests
between nested models (e.g., by dropping or including single moderation effects in the
model).
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 23

Conclusion
In our opinion, LSEM is an important tool for educational research because it can help us to
understand the underlying conditions of learning and to optimize education from the
perspective of education policy. Uncovering which school, family, or child-related
characteristics or backgrounds have a detrimental or favourable effect on learning is vital
when it comes to identifying disadvantaged students and offering support that is targeted on
the underlying mechanisms. Because the majority of these background variables are either
continuous or are being understood increasingly as continuous concepts (e.g., cultural identity
instead of categorical migration status), continuous moderation procedures are required to
study these effects adequately. Whereas traditional measurement invariance approaches often
focus only on the item level (i.e., factor loadings, item intercepts, and residuals), the
procedures presented here provide equivalence tests for all model parameters that can be used
to uncover differences across persons in the structure and mean levels of the latent variables
as well.
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 24

References

Arnold, M., Oberski, D. L., Brandmaier, A. M., & Voelkle, M. C. (2019). Identifying
heterogeneity in dynamic panel models with individual parameter contribution
regression. Structural Equation Modeling, 27(4), 613–628.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1667240
Bainter, S. A., & Howard, A. L. (2016). Comparing within-person effects from multivariate
longitudinal models. Developmental Psychology, 52(12), 1955–1968.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000215
Blossfeld, H. P., Roßbach, H. G., & von Maurice, J. (2011). The German National
Educational Panel Study (NEPS). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft: Sonderheft
14.
Bolsinova, M., & Molenaar, D. (2019). Nonlinear indicator-level moderation in latent variable
models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54, 62–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1486174
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A
reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500101
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Coaley, K. (2014). An introduction to psychological assessment and psychometrics. Sage.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory. Psychology Press.
Ferrer, E., & McArdle, J. J. (2010). Longitudinal modeling of developmental changes in
psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 149–154.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410370300
Gnambs, T., & Schroeders, U. (2020). Cognitive abilities explain wording effects in the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Assessment, 27, 404–418.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117746503
Hartung, J., Doebler, P., Schroeders, U., & Wilhelm, O. (2018). Dedifferentiation and
differentiation of intelligence in adults across age and years of
education. Intelligence, 69, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.04.003
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 25

Hattie, J. (2009). The black box of tertiary assessment: An impending revolution. In L. H.

Meyer, S., Davidson, H. Anderson, R. Fletcher, P. M. Johnston, & M. Rees (Eds.),
Tertiary assessment & higher education student outcomes: Policy, practice &
research (pp. 259–275). Ako Aotearo.
Hessen, D. J., & Dolan, C. V. (2009). Heteroscedastic one‐factor models and marginal
maximum likelihood estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, 62, 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711007X248884
Hildebrandt, A., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Sommer, C., & Wilhelm, O. (2016). Exploring
factor model parameters across continuous variables with local structural equation
models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 257–258.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1142856
Hildebrandt, A., Wilhelm, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2009). Complementary and competing factor
analytic approaches for the investigation of measurement invariance. Review of
Psychology, 16, 87–102.
Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
Hülür, G., Wilhelm, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2011). Intelligence differentiation in early
childhood. Journal of Individual Differences, 32, 170–179.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000049
Jorgensen, T. D., Kite, B. A., Chen, P. Y., & Short, S. D. (2018). Permutation randomization
methods for testing measurement equivalence and detecting differential item
functioning in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological
Methods, 23(4), 708–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000152
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., Selig, J. P., & Card, N. A. (2007). New developments in latent
variable panel analyses of longitudinal data. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 31, 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407077757
Little, T. D., Slegers, D. W., & Card, N. A. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of identifying and
scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13,
59–72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1301_3
Liu, Y., Mo, S., Song, Y., & Wang, M. (2016). Longitudinal analysis in occupational health
psychology: A review and tutorial of three longitudinal modeling techniques. Applied
Psychology, 65, 379–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12055
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 26

Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2007). Umgang mit fehlenden Werten
in der psychologischen Forschung: Probleme und Lösungen. Psychologische
Rundschau, 58, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042.58.2.103
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of
dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19–40.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.19
McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal
data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163612.
McArdle, J. J., & Bell, R. Q. (2000). An introduction to latent growth models for
developmental data analysis. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, & J. Baumert
(Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues, applied
approaches, and specific examples (pp. 69–107, 269–281). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial
invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825
Molenaar, D., Dolan, C. V., Wicherts, J. M., & van der Maas, H. L. (2010). Modeling
differentiation of cognitive abilities within the higher-order factor model using
moderated factor analysis. Intelligence, 38, 611–624.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.09.002
Mund, M., & Nestler, S. (2019). Beyond the cross-lagged panel model: Next-generation
statistical tools for analyzing interdependencies across the life course. Advances in Life
Course Research, 41, 100249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2018.10.002
Oberski, D. (2013). Individual differences in structural equation model parameters. arXiv:
1304.3608
OECD (2009). PISA: Take the test. OECD Publications.
Olaru, G., & Allemand, M. (in press). Correlated personality change across time and age.
European Journal of Personality.
Olaru, G., Schroeders, U., Hartung, J., & Wilhelm, O. (2019). Ant colony optimization and
local weighted structural equation modeling: A tutorial on novel item and person
sampling procedures for personality research. European Journal of Personality, 33,
400–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2195
Park, B. U., Mammen, E., Lee, Y. K., & Lee, E. R. (2015). Varying coefficient regression
models: A review and new developments. International Statistical Review, 83, 36–64.
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 27

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., MacCallum, R. C., & Nicewander, W. A. (2005). Use of the
extreme groups approach: A critical reexamination and new recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 10(2), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.2.178
Richter, T. & Christmann, U. (2002). Lesekompetenz: Prozessebenen und interindividuelle
Unterschiede. In N. Groeben & B. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Lesekompetenz: Bedingungen,
Dimensionen, Funktionen (pp. 25–58). Juventa.
Robitzsch, A. (2019). sirt: Supplementary Item Response Theory Models. R package version
3.6-21. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sirt
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more Version
0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
Schroeders, U. (2018). Ability. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of lifespan
human development (pp. 1–5). SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506307633.n8
Schroeders, U., & Gnambs, T. (2018). Degrees of freedom in multigroup confirmatory factor
analyses: Are models of measurement invariance testing correctly specified? European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-
5759/a000500
Schroeders, U., Schipolowski, S., & Wilhelm, O. (2015). Age-related changes in the mean
and covariance structure of fluid and crystallized intelligence in childhood and
adolescence. Intelligence, 48, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.10.006
Selig, J. P., & Little, T. D. (2012). Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel analysis for
longitudinal data. In B. Laursen, T. D. Little, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Handbook of
developmental research methods (pp. 265–278). Guilford Press.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review
of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
Usami, S., Murayama, K., & Hamaker, E. L. (2019). A unified framework of longitudinal
models to examine reciprocal relations. Psychological Methods, 24, 637−657.
https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000210
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement
invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational
research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Local Structural Equation Modeling for Longitudinal Data 28

Voelkle, M. C., Oud, J. H. L., Davidov, E., & Schmidt, P. (2012). An SEM approach to
continuous time modeling of panel data: Relating authoritarianism and anomia.
Psychological Methods, 17, 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027543
Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2019). Does personality become more stable with
age? Disentangling state and trait effects for the Big Five across the life span using local
structural equation modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4),
666–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000203
Watermann, R., & Baumert, J. (2006). Entwicklung eines Strukturmodells zum
Zusammenhang zwischen sozialer Herkunft und fachlichen und überfachlichen
Kompetenzen: Befunde national und international vergleichender Analysen. In J.
Baumert, P. Stanat, & R. Watermann (Eds.), Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im
Bildungswesen: Differenzielle Bildungsprozesse und Probleme der
Verteilungsgerechtigkeit (pp. 61–94). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90082-7_3
Wu, C. O., & Tian, X. (2018). Nonparametric models for longitudinal data. Chapman and
Hall. https://doi.org/10.1201/b20631