Literature DB >> 29745683

VAR(1) based models do not always outpredict AR(1) models in typical psychological applications.

Kirsten Bulteel1, Merijn Mestdagh1, Francis Tuerlinckx1, Eva Ceulemans1.   

Abstract

In psychology, modeling multivariate dynamical processes within a person is gaining ground. A popular model is the lag-one vector autoregressive or VAR(1) model and its variants, in which each variable is regressed on all variables (including itself) at the previous time point. Many parameters have to be estimated in the VAR(1) model, however. The question thus rises whether the VAR(1) model is not too complex and overfits the data. If the latter is the case, the estimated model will not properly predict new unseen data. As a consequence, it cannot be trusted that the estimated parameters adequately characterize the individual from which the data at hand were sampled. In this article, we evaluate for current psychological applications whether the VAR(1) model outpredicts simpler models, using cross-validation (CV) techniques to determine the predictive accuracy. As it is unclear whether one should use standard CV techniques (leave-one-out CV or K-fold CV) or variants that take time dependence into account (blocked CV, hv-block CV, or accumulated prediction errors), we first compare the relative performance of these five CV techniques in a simulation study. The simulation settings mimic the data characteristics of current psychological VAR(1) applications and show that blocked CV has the best performance in general. Subsequently, we use blocked CV to assess to what extent the VAR(1) models predict unseen data for three recent psychological applications. We show that the VAR(1) based models do not outperform the AR(1) based ones for the three presented psychological applications. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29745683     DOI: 10.1037/met0000178

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Methods        ISSN: 1082-989X


  9 in total

1.  ConNEcT: An R package to build contingency measure-based networks on binary time series.

Authors:  Nadja Bodner; Eva Ceulemans
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-04-05

2.  A Systematic Study into the Factors that Affect the Predictive Accuracy of Multilevel VAR(1) Models.

Authors:  Ginette Lafit; Kristof Meers; Eva Ceulemans
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 2.500

3.  Focusing personality assessment on the person: Modeling general, shared, and person specific processes in personality and psychopathology.

Authors:  Aidan G C Wright; Kathleen M Gates; Cara Arizmendi; Stephanie T Lane; William C Woods; Elizabeth A Edershile
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2019-04

4.  Specifying exogeneity and bilinear effects in data-driven model searches.

Authors:  Cara Arizmendi; Kathleen Gates; Barbara Fredrickson; Aidan Wright
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2021-06

5.  A comparison of continuous and discrete time modeling of affective processes in terms of predictive accuracy.

Authors:  Tim Loossens; Francis Tuerlinckx; Stijn Verdonck
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Insight Into Individual Differences in Emotion Dynamics With Clustering.

Authors:  Anja F Ernst; Marieke E Timmerman; Bertus F Jeronimus; Casper J Albers
Journal:  Assessment       Date:  2019-09-13

7.  The Affective Ising Model: A computational account of human affect dynamics.

Authors:  Tim Loossens; Merijn Mestdagh; Egon Dejonckheere; Peter Kuppens; Francis Tuerlinckx; Stijn Verdonck
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  Detecting long-lived autodependency changes in a multivariate system via change point detection and regime switching models.

Authors:  Jedelyn Cabrieto; Janne Adolf; Francis Tuerlinckx; Peter Kuppens; Eva Ceulemans
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Choosing between AR(1) and VAR(1) models in typical psychological applications.

Authors:  Fabian Dablander; Oisín Ryan; Jonas M B Haslbeck
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.