Mean-Level Change vs. Pattern Change

  • Cody S. Ding
Chapter

Abstract

Illustrate the similarities and differences between MDS growth analysis and growth mixture modeling approach using structural equation modeling. The key point is that MDS focuses on pattern with mean-level removed, while growth mixture modeling focuses on mean-level. Although the results from both approaches may be the same at times, two approaches may provide different aspects of growth or change. An example is provided to demonstrate these two approaches.

Keywords

Growth profile analysis Mean-level change Pattern change 

References

  1. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2012). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: A 3-step approach using Mplus. statmodel.com.
  2. Cudeck, R., & Henly, S. J. (2003). A realistic perspective on pattern representation in growth data: Comment on Bauer and Curran (2003). Psychological Methods, 8(3), 378–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davison, M. L., Gasser, M., & Ding, S. (1996). Identifying major profile patterns in a population: An exploratory study of WAIS and GATB patterns. Psychological Assessment, 8, 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Denton, K., West, J., & Walston, J. (2003). Reading—Young children’s achievement and classroom experiences, NCES 2003–070. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  5. Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1–27.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2001). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Princiotta, D., Flanagan, K. D., & Germino Hausken, E. (2006). Fifth grade: Findings from the fifth grade follow-up of the early childhood longitudinal study, kindergarten class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  9. Ram, N., & Grimm, K. (2009). Growth mixture modeling: A method for identifying differences in longitudinal change among unobserved groups. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(6), 565–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Skinner, H. (1978). Differentiating the contribution of elevation, scatter and shape in profile similarity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18, 450–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wang, M., & Bodner, T. E. (2007). Growth mixture modeling: Identifying and predicting unobserved subpopulations with longitudinal data. Organizational Research Methods, 10(4), 635–656.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cody S. Ding
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Education Science and Professional ProgramUniversity of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Center for NeurodynamicsUniversity of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations