Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reply to ‘Critiques of network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science’

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

From Nature Reviews Methods Primers

View current issue Sign up to alerts

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Borsboom, D. et al. Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 1, 58 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Neal, Z. P. et al. Critiques of network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00177-9 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hill, A. B. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58, 295–300 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Molenaar, P. C. M. A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement 2, 201–218 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M. & Grasman, R. P. P. P. A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychol. Methods 20, 102–116 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fried, E. I., van Borkulo, C. D. & Epskamp, S. On the importance of estimating parameter uncertainty in network psychometrics: a response to Forbes et al. (2019). Multivariate Behav. Res. 56, 243–248 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Borsboom, D. et al. False alarm? A comprehensive reanalysis of “Evidence that psychopathology symptom networks have limited replicability” by Forbes, Wright, Markon, and Krueger (2017). J. Abnorm. Psychol. 126, 989–999 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Epskamp, S. et al. Investigating the utility of fixed-margin sampling in network psychometrics. Multivariate Behav. Res. 56, 314–328 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones, P. J., Williams, D. R. & McNally, R. J. Sampling variability is not nonreplication: a Bayesian reanalysis of Forbes, Wright, Markon, and Krueger. Multivariate Behav. Res. 56, 249–255 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Denny Borsboom, Marie K. Deserno, Claudia D. van Borkulo, Riet van Bork & Lourens J. Waldorp

  2. Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

    Mijke Rhemtulla & Anna C. Wysocki

  3. Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Sacha Epskamp & Adela-Maria Isvoranu

  4. Department of Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

    Eiko I. Fried

  5. Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Richard J. McNally

  6. Department of Applied Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

    Donald J. Robinaugh

  7. Department of Psychology, University of Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy

    Marco Perugini & Giulio Costantini

  8. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA

    Jonas Dalege

  9. Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Riet van Bork

Authors
  1. Denny Borsboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie K. Deserno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mijke Rhemtulla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sacha Epskamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eiko I. Fried
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richard J. McNally
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Donald J. Robinaugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marco Perugini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jonas Dalege
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Giulio Costantini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Adela-Maria Isvoranu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Anna C. Wysocki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Claudia D. van Borkulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Riet van Bork
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Lourens J. Waldorp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article. All authors reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denny Borsboom.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borsboom, D., Deserno, M.K., Rhemtulla, M. et al. Reply to ‘Critiques of network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science’. Nat Rev Methods Primers 2, 91 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00178-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00178-8

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation