Abstract
In the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM), various dyadic patterns between an actor and partner can be examined. One widely used approach is the parameter k method, which tests whether the ratio of the partner effect to the actor effect (p/a) is significantly different from pattern values such as −1 (contrast), 0 (actor-only or partner-only), and 1 (couple). Although using a phantom variable was a useful method for estimating the k ratio, it is no longer necessary due to the availability of statistical packages that allow for a direct estimation of the k ratio without the inclusion of the phantom variable. Moreover, it is possible to examine the patterns by testing new variables defined in different forms from the k or using the χ2 difference test. To date, no previous studies have evaluated and compared the various approaches for detecting the dyadic patterns in APIM. This study aims to assess and compare the performance of four different methods for detecting dyadic patterns: (1) phantom variable approach, (2) direct estimation of the parameter k, (3) new-variable approach, and (4) χ2 difference test. The first two methods frequently included multiple pattern values in there confidence interval. Furthermore, the phantom variable approach was prone to convergence issues. The other two alternatives performed better in detecting the dyadic patterns without convergence problems. Given the findings of the study, we suggest a novel procedure for examining dyadic patterns in APIM.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2019). Amos 26.0 User’s guide. IBM SPSS.
Benichou, J., & Gail, M. H. (1989). A delta method for implicitly defined random variables. The American Statistician, 43(1), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1989.10475608
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/271084
Cheung, M. W. (2007). Comparison of approaches to constructing confidence intervals for mediating effects using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510709336745
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343
Cheung, M. W. L. (2009). Constructing approximate confidence intervals for parameters with structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(2), 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751291
DiCiccio, T. J., & Efron, B. (1996). Bootstrap confidence intervals. Statistical Science, 11(3), 189–228. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1032280214
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall.
Fitzpatrick, J., Gareau, A., Lafontaine, M. F., & Gaudreau, P. (2016). How to use the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) to estimate different dyadic patterns in Mplus: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.1.p074
Fowler, L. A., Grammer, A. C., Ray, M. K., Balantekin, K. N., Stein, R. I., Kolko Conlon, R. P., Welch, R. R., Perri, M. G., Epstein, L. H., & Wilfley, D. E. (2021). Examining the interdependence of parent-child dyads: Effects on weight loss and maintenance. Pediatric Obesity, 16(1), e12697. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12697
Galovan, A. M., Holmes, E. K., & Proulx, C. M. (2017). Theoretical and methodological issues in relationship research: Considering the common fate model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(1), 44–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515621179
Hallquist, M. N., & Wiley, J. F. (2018). MplusAutomation: An R package for facilitating large-scale latent variable analyses in M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1402334
Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2013). What if there were no significance tests? Psychology Press.
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407596132007
Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.x
Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019651
Lau, R. S., & Cheung, G. W. (2012). Estimating and comparing specific mediation effects in complex latent variable models. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110391673
Ledermann, T., Macho, S., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.607099
Ledermann, T., Rudaz, M., Wu, Q., & Cui, M. (2022). Determine power and sample size for the simple and mediation actor-partner interdependence model. Family Relations, 71(4), 1452–1469. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12644
Leung, J. T., Shek, D. T., Kwok, L. M., & Cheung, J. H. (2022). Actor-partner interdependence of socially prescribed parenting perfectionism and parental control in Chinese families. Family Process, 62(2), 722–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12794
Lockwood, C. M., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1998, March). Bootstrapping the standard error of the mediated effect. In proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of SAS users group international (pp. 997–1002).
Macho, S., & Ledermann, T. (2011). Estimating, testing, and comparing specific effects in structural equation models: The phantom model approach. Psychological Methods, 16(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021763
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limit's for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus User’s guide (Eighth ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 353–377. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_2
Perera, H. N. (2013). A novel approach to estimating and testing specific mediation effects in educational research: Explication and application of Macho and Ledermann’s (2011) phantom model approach. International Journal of Quantitative Research in Education, 1(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJQRE.2013.055640
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Rindskopf, D. (1984). Using phantom and imaginary latent variables to parameterize constraints in linear structural models. Psychometrika, 49(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294204
Rogers, A. A., Ha, T., Byon, J., & Thomas, C. (2020). Masculine gender-role adherence indicates conflict resolution patterns in heterosexual adolescent couples: A dyadic, observational study. Journal of Adolescence, 79, 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.004
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36 http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. https://doi.org/10.2307/270723
Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. (2009). Python 3 reference manual. CreateSpace.
VanderDrift, L. E., Vanable, P. A., Bonafide, K. E., Brown, J. L., Bostwick, R. A., et al. (2017). Using actor-partner interdependence modeling to understand HPV vaccine acceptance. PLoS One, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181662
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
(DOCX 17 kb)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, J., Kim, J. & Kim, M. A comparison of the methods for detecting dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Behav Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02233-y
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02233-y