Abstract
Arguments are proposed that researchers using longitudinal data should consider more and less complex statistical model alternatives to their initially chosen techniques in an effort to "right-size" the model to the data at hand. Such model comparisons may alert researchers who use poorly fitting, overly parsimonious models to more complex, better-fitting alternatives and, alternatively, may identify more parsimonious alternatives to overly complex (and perhaps empirically underidentified and/or less powerful) statistical models. A general framework is proposed for considering (often nested) relationships between a variety of psychometric and growth curve models. A 3-step approach is proposed in which models are evaluated based on the number and patterning of variance components prior to selection of better-fitting growth models that explain both mean and variation-covariation patterns. The orthogonal free curve slope intercept (FCSI) growth model is considered a general model that includes, as special cases, many models, including the factor mean (FM) model (McArdle & Epstein, 1987), McDonald's (1967) linearly constrained factor model, hierarchical linear models (HLMs), repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and the linear slope intercept (linearSI) growth model. The FCSI model, in turn, is nested within the Tuckerized factor model. The approach is illustrated by comparing alternative models in a longitudinal study of children's vocabulary and by comparing several candidate parametric growth and chronometric models in a Monte Carlo study.