Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 413–422 | Cite as

The “Quick Start Guide” for Conducting and Publishing Longitudinal Research

  • Robert E. Ployhart
  • Anna-Katherine Ward


Consideration of temporal issues adds precision and insight to our theories, yet most organizational and applied psychological research is based on cross-sectional designs. Calls for longitudinal research have become common in leading journals, but the existing literature provides little prescriptive guidance to overcome the many challenges of this type of research. This article provides a concise summary of challenges to address when theorizing, designing, conducting, and publishing longitudinal research. We structure the article around 12 judgment calls that typically confront researchers when conducting longitudinal studies. We respond to these judgment calls using theory and findings from the relevant literatures, as well as our own experience in designing and conducting longitudinal research across many scholarly domains. Included in these judgment calls is an emphasis on presenting and framing one’s study for publication. We challenge readers to develop theory that addresses the when, why, and duration of change, and to test the theory with the appropriate longitudinal methods. This “quick start guide” is intended to serve as a useful reference for authors and reviewers at any level of methodological expertise.


Longitudinal research Study design Research methods Time Modeling change 



We would like to thank Steven Rogelberg and Scott Tonidandel for their helpful and constructive comments on this article.


  1. Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Anseel, F., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., & Choragwicka, B. (2010). Response rates in organizational science, 1995–2008. A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, H., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biesanz, J. C., Deeb-Sossa, N., Papadakis, A. A., Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2004). The role of coding time in estimating and interpreting growth curve models. Psychological Methods, 9, 30–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 362–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal, in press.Google Scholar
  8. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncan, S. C., Duncan, T. E., & Hops, H. (1996). Analysis of longitudinal data within accelerated longitudinal designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26, 657–684.Google Scholar
  11. Graham, J. W., Hofer, S. M., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1996). Maximizing the usefulness of data obtained with planned missing value patterns: An application of maximum likelihood procedures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., & Cumsille, P. E. (2001). Planned missing data designs in analysis of change. In L. Collins & M. Sayers (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 335–353). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mehta, P. D., & West, S. G. (2000). Putting the individual back into individual growth curves. Psychological Methods, 5, 23–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26, 530–547.Google Scholar
  18. Newman, D. A. (2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 328–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Palmer, R. F., & Royall, D. R. (2010). Missing data? Plan on it!. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 58, 343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ployhart, R. E., & Kim, Y. (in press). Dynamic longitudinal growth modeling. Dynamic longitudinal growth models. In J. Cortina & R. Landis (Eds.), Frontiers of methodology in organizational research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Ramsey, J. (2009). The consequences of human resource stocks and flows: A longitudinal examination of unit service orientation and unit effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 996–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raudenbush, S. W., & Liu, X. (2001). Effects of study duration, frequency of observation, and sample size on power in studies of group differences in polynomial change. Psychological Methods, 6, 387–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rogosa, D. R. (1995). Myths and methods: “myths about longitudinal research” plus supplemental questions. In J. M. Gottman (Ed.), The analysis of change (pp. 3–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Willett, J. B. (1989). Some results on reliability for the longitudinal measurement of change: Implications for the design of studies of individual growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 587–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Darla Moore School of BusinessUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations