This research advances understanding of empirical time modeling techniques in self-regulated learning research. We intuitively explain several such methods by situating their use in the extant literature. Further, we note key statistical and inferential assumptions of each method while making clear the inferential consequences of inattention to such assumptions.
Using a population model derived from a recent large-scale review of the training and work learning literature, we employ a Monte Carlo simulation fitting six variations of linear mixed models, seven variations of latent common factor models, and a single latent change score model to 1500 simulated datasets.
The latent change score model outperformed all six of the linear mixed models and all seven of the latent common factor models with respect to (1) estimation precision of the average learner improvement, (2) correctly rejecting a false null hypothesis about such average improvement, and (3) correctly failing to reject true null hypothesis about between-learner differences (i.e., random slopes) in average improvement.
The latent change score model is a more flexible method of modeling time in self-regulated learning research, particularly for learner processes consistent with twenty-first-century workplaces. Consequently, defaulting to linear mixed or latent common factor modeling methods may have adverse inferential consequences for better understanding self-regulated learning in twenty-first-century work.
Ours is the first study to critically, rigorously, and empirically evaluate self-regulated learning modeling methods and to provide a more flexible alternative consistent with modern self-regulated learning knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338–375.
Ballard, T., Yeo, G., Loft, S., Vancouver, J. B., & Neal, A. (2016). An integrated formal model of motivation and decision making: The MPMM*. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1240–1265.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87.
Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2010). Motivation in training and development: A phase perspective. In S. J. Kozlowski, E. Salas, S. J. Kozlowski, & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 65–97). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 296–316. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.296.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.
Bledow, R. (2013). Demand-perception and self-motivation as opponent processes: A response to Bandura and Vancouver. Journal of Management, 39(1), 14–26.
Braun, M. T., Kuljanin, G., & DeShon, R. P. (2013). Spurious results in the analysis of longitudinal data in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 302–330.
Brown, K. G., Howardson, G. N., & Fisher, S. W. (2016). Learner control: Taking stock and moving forward. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 267–291.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
Curran, P. J. (2003). Have multilevel models been structural equation models all along? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(4), 529–569.
Debowski, S., Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (2001). Impact of guided exploration and enactive exploration on self-regulatory mechanisms and information acquisition through electronic search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1129–1141.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121.
Ford, J. K. (2008). Transforming our models of learning and development: How far do we go? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 468–471.
Ford, J. K., & Oswald, F. L. (2003). Understanding the dynamic learner: Linking personality traits, learning situations, and individual behavior. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 229–260). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gully, S., & Chen, G. (2010). Individual differences, attribute-treatment interactions, and training outcomes. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 3–64). New York: Routledge.
Heggestad, E. D., & Kanfer, R. (2005). The predictive validity of self-efficacy in training performance: Little more than past performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(2), 84.
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hughes, M. G., Day, E. A., Wang, X., Schuelke, M. J., Arsenault, M. L., Harkrider, L. N., et al. (2013). Learner-controlled practice difficulty in the training of a complex task: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 80.
Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H., & Lord, R. G. (2006). Moving from cognition to behavior: What the research says. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 381.
Kanar, A. M., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Guiding learners through technology-based instruction: The effects of adaptive guidance design and individual differences on learning over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1067–1081.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657–690. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.74.4.657.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A self-regulatory skills perspective to reducing cognitive interference. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings. The LEA series in personality and clinical psychology (pp. 153–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1996). Motivational skills and self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 185–209.
Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2005). Self-regulation in error management training: Emotion control and metacognition as mediators of performance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 677–691.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2006). Disentangling achievement orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 900.
Kuljanin, G., Braun, M. T., & DeShon, R. P. (2011). A cautionary note on modeling growth trends in longitudinal data. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 249.
Liu, S., Rovine, M. J., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2012). Selecting a linear mixed model for longitudinal data: Repeated measures analysis of variance, covariance patter model, and growth curve approaches. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 15–30.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705.
Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010). Self-regulation at work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 543–568.
McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 530–547.
National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. In J. W. Pellegrino & M. L. Hilton (Eds.), Committee on defining deeper learning and 21st century skills, board on testing and assessment and board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D. M., & Klein, H. J. (2014). Learning in the twenty-first-century workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 245–275.
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). The moderating effects of performance ambiguity on the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 572.
Sitzmann, T., Bell, B. S., Kraiger, K., & Kanar, A. M. (2009). A multilevel analysis of the effect of prompting self-regulation in technology-delivered instruction. Personnel Psychology, 62, 697–734.
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder: the effects of prompting self-regulation on regulatory processes, learning, and attrition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 132.
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421.
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Bell, B. S., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). The effects of technical difficulties on learning and attrition during online training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), 281–292.
Sitzmann, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012a). The best laid plans: Examining the conditions under which a planning intervention improves learning and reduces attrition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 967.
Sitzmann, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012b). When is ignorance bliss? The effects of inaccurate self-assessments of knowledge on learning and attrition. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 192–207.
Sitzmann, T., & Wang, M. (2015). The survey effect: Does administering surveys affect trainees’ behavior? Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 1–12.
Sitzmann, T., & Weinhardt, J. M. (2015). Training engagement theory a multilevel perspective on the effectiveness of work-related training. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206315574596.
Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrated review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176–199.
Steel, P., & König, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 889–913.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500.
Vancouver, J. B. (2005). The depth of history and explanation as benefit and bane for psychological control theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 38.
Vancouver, J. B. (2008). Integrating self-regulation theories of work motivation into a dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review, 18(1), 1–18.
Vancouver, J. B., & Carlson, B. W. (2015). All things in moderation, including tests of mediation (at least some of the time). Organizational Research Methods, 18(1), 70–91.
Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1146–1153.
Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J. M., & Schmidt, A. M. (2010). A formal, computational theory of multiple-goal pursuit: integrating goal-choice and goal-striving processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 985.
Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J. M., & Vigo, R. (2014). Change one can believe in: Adding learning to computational models of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 56–74.
Wood, R. E., Kakebeeke, B. M., Debowski, S., & Frese, M. (2000). The impact of enactive exploration on intrinsic motivation, strategy, and performance in electronic search. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(2), 263–283.
Yeo, G., Loft, S., Xiao, T., & Kiewitz, C. (2009). Goal orientations and performance: Differential relationships across levels of analysis and as a function of task demands. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 710–726.
Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effects; of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 231–247.
Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2006). An examination of the dynamic relationship between self efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1088.
Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2008). Subjective cognitive effort: A model of states, traits, and time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 617.
Zyphur, M. J. (2009). When mindsets collide: Switching analytical mindsets to advance organization science. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 677–688.
The authors would like to thank Kevin Murphy and two anonymous reviewers for the helpful direction in revising this manuscript.
About this article
Cite this article
Howardson, G.N., Karim, M.N. & Horn, R.G. The Latent Change Score Model: A More Flexible Approach to Modeling Time in Self-Regulated Learning. J Bus Psychol 32, 317–334 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9475-4
- Self-regulated learning
- Longitudinal modeling
- Multilevel modeling
- Latent change score