Objectives. Given theoretical and methodological advances that propose hypothesis about change in one or multiple processes, analytical methods for longitudinal data have been developed that provide researchers with various options for analyzing change over time. In this paper, we revisited several latent growth curve models that may be considered to answer questions about repeated measures of continuous variables, which may be operationalized as time-varying covariates or outcomes.

Study Design and Setting. To illustrate each of the models discussed and how to interpret parameter estimates, we present examples of each method discussed using cognitive and blood pressure measures from a longitudinal study of aging, the Origins of Variance in the Old-Old study.

Results and Conclusion. Although statistical models are helpful tools to test theoretical hypotheses about the dynamics between multiple processes, the choice of model and its specification will influence results and conclusions made.

Objectives. To identify statistical methods for harmonization, the procedures aimed at achieving the comparability of previously collected data, which could be used in the context of summary data and individual participant data meta-analysis of cognitive measures.

Study Design and Setting. Environmental scan methods were used to conduct two reviews to identify (1) studies that quantitatively combined data on cognition and (2) general literature on statistical methods for data harmonization. Search results were rapidly screened to identify articles of relevance.

Results. All 33 meta-analyses combining cognition measures either restricted their analyses to a subset of studies using a common measure or combined standardized effect sizes across studies; none reported their harmonization steps before producing summary effects. In the second scan, three general classes of statistical harmonization models were identified (1) standardization methods, (2) latent variable models, and (3) multiple imputation models; few publications compared methods.

Conclusion. Although it is an implicit part of conducting a meta-analysis or pooled analysis, the methods used to assess inferential equivalence of complex constructs are rarely reported or discussed. Progress in this area will be supported by guidelines for the conduct and reporting of the data harmonization and integration and by evaluating and developing statistical approaches to harmonization.

Clinical and population research on dementia and related neurologic conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, faces several unique methodological challenges. Progress to identify preventive and therapeutic strategies rests on valid and rigorous analytic approaches, but the research literature reflects little consensus on “best practices.” We present findings from a large scientific working group on research methods for clinical and population studies of dementia, which identified five categories of methodological challenges as follows: (1) attrition/sample selection, including selective survival; (2) measurement, including uncertainty in diagnostic criteria, measurement error in neuropsychological assessments, and practice or retest effects; (3) specification of longitudinal models when participants are followed for months, years, or even decades; (4) time-varying measurements; and (5) high-dimensional data. We explain why each challenge is important in dementia research and how it could compromise the translation of research findings into effective prevention or care strategies. We advance a checklist of potential sources of bias that should be routinely addressed when reporting dementia research.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is a widely used measure of emotional experience. The factor structure of the PANAS has been examined predominantly with cross-sectional designs, which fails to disaggregate within-person variation from between-person differences. There is still uncertainty as to the factor structure of positive and negative affect and whether they constitute 2 distinct independent factors. The present study examined the within-person and between-person factor structure of the PANAS in 2 independent samples that reported daily affect over 7 and 14 occasions, respectively. Results from multilevel confirmatory factor analyses revealed that a 2-factor structure at both the within-person and between-person levels, with correlated specific factors for overlapping items, provided good model fit. The best-fitting solution was one where within-person factors of positive and negative affect were inversely correlated, but between-person factors were independent. The structure was further validated through multilevel structural equation modeling examining the effects of cognitive interference, daily stress, physical symptoms, and physical activity on positive and negative affect factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)