See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288262425

Latent state-trait models

Chapter · January 2012

DOI: 10.1037/13621-014

CITATIONS READS
41 1,421

3 authors:

Rolf Steyer Christian Geiser

Friedrich Schiller University Jena Christian Geiser Consulting LLC
112 PUBLICATIONS   4,290 CITATIONS    128 PUBLICATIONS   4,684 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Christiane Fiege
University of Tuebingen
9 PUBLICATIONS   320 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Analysis of conditional and average causal effects View project

Sluggish Cognitive Tempo View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christian Geiser on 30 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 14

Latent State–Trait Models

Rolf Steyer, Christian Geiser, and Christiane Fiege

Latent state–trait models, which decompose
observed variables into latent trait, latent state, and
error components, have been developed in reaction
to the person-situation debate in differential psy-
chology (e.g., see Anastasi, 1983; Bowers, 1973;
Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Epstein, 1979, 1980;
Mischel, 1998). At about the same time, the dis-
tinction between states and traits became an issue
(e.g., see Cattell, 1966, 1979; Cattell & Scheier,
1961; Nesselroade & Bartsch, 1977; Spielberger,
1972). Some researchers sought to assess states
using items that ask for current mood states (How
do you feel/think right now?) and to assess traits
using items asking for traits (How do you feel/
think, in general?; e.g., see Spielberger, 1972). Oth-
ers sought to define and measure traits by aggrega-
tion of behavioral observations over representative
samples of situations (e.g., Epstein, 1979, 1980),
and still others tried to assess states and traits, rep-
resenting them as latent variables in structural
equation models (e.g., see Ormel & Schaufeli,
1991). Others (e.g., Hertzog & Nesselroade, 1987)
suggested distinguishing states and traits by the
size of their autocorrelations; they should be high
for traits and low for states. But what is high and
what is low? Hertzog and Nesselroade (1987) also
suggested a more fundamental idea, writing, “Gen-
erally it is certainly the case that most psychologi-
cal attributes will neither be, strictly speaking,
traits or states. That is, attributes can have both
trait and state components” (p. 95).
At about the same time, Steyer (1987, 1989) and
his associates (e.g., see Majcen, Steyer, & Schwenk-
mezger, 1988; Steyer, Ferring, & Schmitt, 1992;
Steyer, Majcen, Schwenkmezger, & Buchner, 1989;
Steyer & Schmitt, 1990a, 1990b; Steyer, Schmitt, &
Eid, 1999; Steyer, Schwenkmezger, & Auer, 1990)
introduced the basic concepts of latent state–trait
theory (LST theory) and developed latent state–trait
models (LST models)—specific structural equation
models in which the latent variables can be inter-
preted as reflecting latent-state or latent-trait com-
ponents. In the late-1990s, state change (Steyer, Eid,
& Schwenkmezger, 1997) and trait change models
(Eid & Hoffmann, 1998; Steyer, Krambeer, & Han-
növer, 2004) were introduced. Furthermore, recent
research on multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) anal-
ysis has stimulated new ways of constructively
defining and modeling method effects (e.g., Eid,
2000; Eid, Lischetzke, Nussbeck, & Trierweiler,
2003; Eid et al., 2008; Pohl, Steyer, & Kraus, 2008;
Pohl & Steyer, 2010). These new approaches have
been applied to model measure-specific (or indica-
tor-specific) effects in LST models (Eid, Schneider,
& Schwenkmezger, 1999) as well as to models with
latent-state and trait change variables (Geiser, 2009;
Geiser, Eid, Nussbeck, Courvoisier, & Cole, 2010a,
2010b; Vautier, Steyer, & Boomsma, 2008). Fur-
thermore, LST models have been extended to multi-
construct models that simultaneously study the
associations between the state and trait components
pertaining to different psychological constructs (e.g.,

We thank Ginger Lockhart for helpful comments and for checking our use of the English language.

DOI: 10.1037/13621-014
APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology: Vol. 3. Data Analysis and Research Publication, H. Cooper (Editor-in-Chief)
291
Copyright © 2012 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
Steyer, Geiser, and Fiege
Dumenci & Windle, 1998; Eid, Notz, Steyer, & Sch-
wenkmezger, 1994; Steyer et al., 1990). Last but not
least, LST models can also be used in modeling indi-
vidual causal effects (e.g., see Steyer, 2005).
The organization of this chapter follows exactly
these points. We start by defining the basic concepts
of LST theory, present the assumptions defining var-
ious LST models, and show how to introduce latent-
state and latent-trait change variables. We then
discuss why the inclusion of method factors is often
required in models of LST theory, and present dif-
ferent ways of constructively defining method fac-
tors in LST models. Finally, we discuss
multiconstruct models as well as other recent exten-
sions of the classic LST model.
Basic Concepts of Latent State–
Trait Theory
In LST theory, we do not simply assume that there
is, for example, a latent variable that we label “trait
factor” or “state residual factor.” Instead, the latent
variables are defined constructively, that is, on the
basis of assumptions about well-defined concepts
referring to the underlying random experiment (e.g.,
Steyer, 1988). Although involving some formalism,
studying this random experiment is useful, because
it helps us to come up with a clear definition of what
the latent variables in LST models really are. This
has the advantage that we know exactly what these
variables mean, facilitating our interpretation of the
results of specific models of LST theory.
In LST theory, we consider several observations
Yit of an attribute at time t. Two different observa-
tions are denoted by Yit and Yjt, i ≠ j. We decompose
each Yit into three theoretical (latent) components, a
measurement error component, a trait component,
and a state residual component. The sum of the trait
and the state residual components is the latent-state
component.
The observations Yit are considered to be random
variables. Therefore, we also call them observables.
Random variables always refer to a random experi-
ment, which is the kind of empirical phenomenon
with which the theory deals. The random experi-
ment in LST theory is not an experiment in the clas-
sic sense (i.e., it does not involve an experimental
292
manipulation of independent variables) but rather
refers to making several observations of the same
person that is possibly in a different situation at each
time t of measurement. This is in line with the key
idea of LST theory, according to which we never
measure a person in a situational vacuum.
The random experiment considered in LST theory
is as follows: We sample a person from a set ΩU (the
population) of persons, observe whatever is needed to
determine the value of the observables Yi1 at Time 1
(e.g., answers to items of a questionnaire, behavior
observations, or physiological measures) and repeat
these observations at one or several other time points.
We also assume that, at each time-point, there is a set
 St of situations, one of which will occur while the
person is being assessed. Hence, the sample space,
that is, the set of all possible outcomes of the random
experiment has the following structure:
 = U ×  S1 × O1 × … ×  St × Ot
 (1)
×… ×  ST × OT ,
where Ot denotes the set of possible observations at
time t = 1, . . ., T and × denotes the Cartesian product.
This structure of the sample space allows us to
consider the following random variables:
Yit: the observables, that is, the observations of an
attribute at time t, which only depend on the
elements of the set Ot , t = 1, . . ., T. Because
there are several observations of the same attri-
bute at time t (e.g., several items or scales), the
subscript i indicates the ith observation of the
attribute.
U: the observational-unit variable (or person variable
if the units are persons). The value u of U indi-
cates which unit is sampled from the set ΩU.
St: the situation variable pertaining to time t. The
value st of St indicates the situation that realizes
when the unit is assessed at time t.
As we will see later, it is not necessary that we
observe the actual situations—the values of the sit-
uation variable St—in which the measurements are
made. It is sufficient to assume that we always
assess a person-in-a-situation (Anastasi, 1983).
Now we can define the latent-state variable
τit = E(Yit | U, St).  (2)
 Latent State–Trait Models

Its values E(Yit | U = u, St = st) are the conditional Implications of the Definitions of
expectations of Yit given the person u and the situa- Latent States and Latent Traits
tion st in which the person is when Yit is observed. In
The definitions of latent-state and latent-trait
contrast, the latent-trait variable is defined by
variables—and the associated residuals, the
ξit = E(Yit | U).  (3) measurement error variable, and the latent-state
residual—imply a number of properties of these
Its values E(Yit | U = u) are the conditional expec-
concepts (see Exhibit 14.1). These properties are
tations of Yit given the person u. Furthermore, the
special cases of the general properties of conditional
measurement error variable is defined to be the
expectations and their residuals (e.g., Steyer, Nagel,
residual
Partchev, & Mayer, in press). These properties can-
εit = Yit − τit.  (4) not be tested empirically, in the same way that the
statement a bachelor is unmarried cannot be tested
Its values are the differences between the
empirically, because being unmarried is a logical
observed scores of Yit and the latent-state scores E(Yit |
implication of the concept of bachelor. The only
U = u, St = st). Finally, the latent-state residual is the
thing that can be tested empirically is whether a
difference
particular man is a bachelor. Analogously, we can-
ζit = τit − ξit.  (5) not and need not empirically test whether a latent-
state residual is correlated with a latent-trait variable
Its values are the deviations of the latent-state scores
or whether a measurement error variable is corre-
from the latent-trait scores.
lated with a latent-trait variable or with a latent-
These are the four fundamental theoretical
state variable pertaining to the same time-point t.
concepts of LST theory. These concepts are
These correlations are zero by definition of these
defined on the sole assumption that we consider
theoretical concepts.
a random experiment that can be structured by
the type of sample space described in Equation 1
and that the observables Yit have finite expecta- Models of Latent State–Trait
tions. This guarantees that the conditional expec- Theory
tations and their residuals—and therefore also
The theoretical concepts introduced thus far are
the latent-state and latent-trait variables—are
well defined and do not rest on any restrictive
well defined.
assumptions that could be violated in an empirical
Furthermore, we can define the reliability coeffi-
cient as
Rel(Yit) = Var(τit)/Var(Yit),  (6)
Exhibit 14.1
which quantifies the degree to which the observ-
Properties of the Basic Concepts of Latent State–
ables Yit are error-free measures. In contrast, the
Trait Theory Implied by Their Definition
consistency coefficient
Con(Yit) = Var(ξit)/Var(Yit)  (7)
Decomposition of variables
is a quantity describing the degree to which the   Yit = τit + εit
  τit = ξit + ζit
latent trait ξit determines the observable Yit. Finally, Decomposition of variances
the occasion specificity coefficient   Var(Yit) = Var(τit) + Var(εit)
  Var(τit) = Var(ξit) + Var(ζit)
Spe(Yit) = Var(ζit)/Var(Yit)  (8) Other properties
  E(εit | U, St) = E(εit | U) = E(εit) = 0
represents the degree to which the situation and/or
  E(ζit | U) = E(ζit) = 0
the interaction between person and situation deter-   Cov(εit, ζjt) = Cov(εit, τjt) = Cov(εit, ξjs) = Cov(ζit, ξjs) = 0
mines the observable Yit.

293
Steyer, Geiser, and Fiege
application. This is true even though we do not
know the expectations, variances, and covariances
of the theoretical variables or the LST coefficients of
reliability, consistency, and occasion specificity.
Assumptions that could be violated in applications
(e.g., about the homogeneity of trait variables per-
taining to different observables) have to be intro-
duced if we actually want to determine these
parameters from other parameters that are empiri-
cally estimable. These assumptions define specific
models of LST theory.
Single-Trait Model
The crudest model of LST theory is the single-trait
model defined by two assumptions. The first one is
τit = λit0 + λit1 ξ,   λit0, λit1 ∈ IR,  (9)
where λit0 and λit1 are real constants. This assump-
tion means that all latent-state variables are linear
functions of each other. It implies that all latent-
state variables are perfectly correlated and may differ
only with regard to their scale (i.e., their origin and
units of measurement). The parameter λit0 can be
interpreted as an intercept (origin of measurement),
and the parameter λit1 as a slope coefficient (factor
loading) that reflects the units of measurement. In
sum, the first assumption suggests unidimensional-
ity of all latent-state variables—irrespective of the
measurement occasion (i.e., possible occasion- or
situation-specific influences and person–situation
interactions are ignored).
According to the second assumption, the mea-
surement error variables are uncorrelated, that is,
Cov(εit, εjs) = 0,   for (i, t) ≠ (j, s).  (10)
This assumption implies that the latent-trait fac-
tor accounts for all of the covariation among the
observed variables. Figure 14.1 displays the path dia-
gram of the model for two observations at each of
two occasions (time-points). According to this
model, the latent-state and latent-trait components of
an observable Yit are identical, for all four observables
considered. This means that there are neither situa-
tion effects nor interaction effects between person
and situation. The only sources of variance in the
observables are interindividual differences, which are
represented by a unidimensional latent variable (ξ)
294
ε 11 Y11
ε 21 Y21
1
λ211
ξ
λ121
λ221
ε 12 Y12
ε 22 Y22
Figure 14.1.  Single-trait
model for two observed
variables Yit (i = variable,
t = time-point) measured on
two occasions of measure-
ment. ξ = latent-trait factor;
λit1 = factor loading; εit = mea-
surement error variable.
and measurement error. Unidimensionality means
that we assume the different observations of the same
attribute at each point of time to measure exactly the
same latent trait (ξ), although perhaps on a different
scale. These different scales are represented by the
corresponding differences in the intercepts λit0 and
slope coefficients λit1. Finally, the model also implies
that there is no change in the attribute over the time-
points considered, neither change caused by situa-
tion and interaction effects nor change caused by a
systematic change in the trait.
A technical issue that needs to be addressed in
practical applications is that the scale of the latent-
trait variable ξ is not uniquely determined per se,
but needs to be fixed by the investigator. This can be
done, for example, by setting λ110 = 0 and λ111 = 1.
With these constraints, the latent trait ξ becomes
identical to ξ11, the latent-trait variable of Y11, that is,
ξ = ξ11. An alternative option is to set E(ξ) = 0 and
Var(ξ) = 1. With these constraints, the latent trait ξ
is a linear function of any of the measure-specific
latent-trait variables ξit. Either one of these options
fixes the scale of the latent-trait factors.
As noted, the single-trait model is crude and sim-
plistic because it assumes that the observables only
depend on a common trait and measurement error.
The model suggests that any changes in Yit over time
are just due to random measurement error or
changes in the scale of Yit (as reflected in different
coefficients λit0 and λit1 over time). In none of the

applications in different fields of psychology did we
ever see an example in which the single-trait model
showed an acceptable fit to actual data, and this
includes the measurement of personality traits
(Deinzer et al., 1995; Schmukle & Egloff, 2005),
values (M. Schmitt, Schwartz, Steyer, & T. Schmitt,
1993), EEG measures (Hagemann, Hewig, Seifert,
Naumann, & Bartussek, 2005; Hagemann &
Naumann, 2009; Hagemann, Naumann, Thayer, &
Bartussek, 2002), cerebral blood flow (Hermes et al.,
2009), cortisol in saliva (Hellhammer et al., 2007;
Kirschbaum et al., 1990) and, of course, mood states
(e.g., Eid et al., 1994; Steyer et al., 1989).
Multistate Model
A much more realistic model is the multistate model
defined by
τit = λit0 + λit1 τt,    λit0, λit1 ∈ IR    . (11)
This assumption means that all latent-state vari-
ables that are measured on the same measurement
occasion are linear functions of each other. Hence,
this assumption is less restrictive than the assump-
tion made in the single-trait model, in which case
we assumed all latent-state variables to be unidi-
mensional (irrespective of the measurement occa-
sion). Equation 11 implies that there is a common
(occasion-specific) latent variable τt, which can be
referred to as a latent-state factor. That is, the model
also assumes homogeneity of the state variables, but
only of those that are measured on the same occa-
sion of measurement t.
The scales of the latent-state factors τt are
uniquely determined by setting λ1t0 = 0 and λ1t1 = 1,
or by E(τt) = 0 and Var(τt) = 1, for each t = 1, . . ., T.
With λ1t0 = 0 and λ1t1 = 1, the latent-state variable τt
is identical to the measure-specific latent-state vari-
able τ1t, that is, τt = τ1t. In contrast, with E(τt) = 0
and Var(τt) = 1, the latent-state variable τt is a linear
function of any of the measure-specific latent-state
variables τit. The second assumption is again the
assumption of uncorrelated measurement errors
(see Equation 10).
Figure 14.2 displays the path diagram of such a
model for two observations at each of two occasions
(time-points). According to this model, the latent-
state components of an observable Yit are identical
Latent State–Trait Models
ε 11 Y11
1
τ1
λ211
ε 21 Y21
ε 12 Y12
1
τ2
λ221
ε 22 Y22
Figure 14.2.  Multistate model
for two observed variables Yit (i =
variable, t = time-point) measured
on two occasions of measurement.
τt = latent-state factor; λit1 = factor
loading; εit = measurement error
variable.
within each occasion of measurement, at least in the
sense that they are linear functions of each other.
In contrast to the single-trait model, the multi-
state model allows for situation effects or interaction
between person and situation. Sources of variance in
the observables are now interindividual differences,
situation or interaction effects, and measurement
errors. In this model we also assume that the two
different observations of the same attribute at each
point of time measure exactly the same latent-state
variable τt, although perhaps on a different scale.
Furthermore, both interindividual differences as
well as situation and interaction effects may deter-
mine the latent-state variables τt. In this model,
however, state and trait components are not sepa-
rated. Nevertheless, we may consider the correla-
tions between the latent-state variables pertaining to
different time-points, the latent-state stabilities: The
higher these correlations, the more likely it is that
there are also stable individual differences over time.
Single-Trait/Multistate Model
To separate state and trait components, we have to
introduce the trait component into the model as well.
The single-trait/multistate model is the simplest kind
of model in which this is achieved. It is defined by
τit = λit0 + λit1 τt,   λit0, λit1 ∈ IR  (12)
and
ξit = γit0 + γit1 ξ,   γit0, γit1 ∈ IR ,  (13)
295
Steyer, Geiser, and Fiege
where γit0 is an intercept and γit1 is a slope coeffi-
cient (second order factor loading). These assump-
tions suggest that (a) as in the multistate model, all
latent-state variables measured on the same occasion
of measurement are unidimensional (so that we can
introduce a common latent-state factor τt) and (b)
trait variables are unidimensional as well (so that we
can introduce a common trait factor ξ).
Assigning a scale to the latent-state factors τt is
again achieved either by setting λ1t0 = 0 and λ1t1 = 1,
or by setting E(τt) = 0 and Var(τt) = 1, for each t = 1,
. . ., T. Assigning a scale to the latent-trait factor ξ is
achieved either by setting γ110 = 0 and γ111 = 1, or by
setting E(ξ) = 0 and Var(ξ) = 1. Fixing the scales of
the latent-state variables τt by setting λ1t0 = 0 and
λ1t1 = 1 and the scale of the latent-trait variable ξ by
setting γ110 = 0 and γ111 = 1 implies τt = τ1t and ξ =
ξ11. In contrast, with E(τt) = 0, Var(τt) = 1, E(ξ) = 0
and Var(ξ) = 1, the latent-state variable τt is a linear
function of any of the measure-specific latent-state
variables τit, and the latent-trait variable ξ is a linear
function of any measure-specific latent-trait variable
ξit. Again, it is assumed that the measurement error
variables are uncorrelated (see Equation 10). Addi-
tionally, it is assumed that the latent-state residuals
belonging to different occasions of measurement are
uncorrelated, that is,
Cov(ζit, ζjs) = 0, for t ≠ s.  (14)
We can show algebraically that Equation 13 is
equivalent to
τt = γt0 + γt1 ξ + ζt,   γt0, γt1 ∈ IR      , (15)
which means that each latent-state factor can be
additively decomposed into an intercept (γt0), a
latent-trait component (ξ) that is weighted by a sec-
ond-order factor loading (γt1), and a latent-state
residual component (ζt). The assumptions of the
single-trait–multistate model can be summarized by
the path diagram displayed in Figure 14.3, again for
two observations at each of two occasions (time-
points). If we consider just two time-points, we
either have to fix both coefficients γ11 and γ21 to 1 or
fix the variance Var(ξ) = 1 with the additional con-
straint of setting the loadings equal: γ11 = γ21. Other-
wise, this part of the model would not be identified.
296
ε 11 Y11 ζ1
1
τ1
λ211
ε 21 Y21
ξ
ε 12 Y12
1
τ2
λ221
ε 22 Y22 ζ2
Figure 14.3.  Single-trait/multistate
model for two observed variables Yit (i =
variable, t = time-point) measured on two
occasions of measurement. τt = latent-state
factor; ξ = latent-trait factor; ζt = latent-state
residual; λit1 = factor loading; εit = measure-
ment error variable.
As in the multistate model, the latent-state compo-
nents of an observable Yit are identical within each
occasion of measurement, at least in the sense that
they are linear functions of each other. Additionally, in
this model, we assume that the common latent-state
variable τt can be decomposed into a trait component
ξ that is invariant over all occasions of measurement
and a latent-state residual ζt specific for occasion t.
Assuming such a common latent trait ξ is equivalent
to assuming that the measure-specific latent-trait com-
ponents ξit are linear functions of each other.
Just as the multistate model, this model allows for
situation effects or interaction between person and
situation. It additionally decomposes the state com-
ponents into a trait and a state residual. Sources of
variance in the observables are now interindividual
differences (explicitly represented by ξ), situation or
interaction effects (explicitly represented by the com-
ponents ζt), and measurement errors. Figure 14.3
shows that both, ξ and ζt, determine the latent-state
variables τt. Just as in the multistate model, in this
model, we also assume that the two different observa-
tions of the same attribute at each point of time mea-
sure exactly the same latent-state variable τt, again
perhaps on a different scale. Hence, this model also
allows for change in the attribute considered. This
time, however, it is assumed that this change is due to
situation or interaction effects but not to a systematic
change in the trait components, at least not to change
beyond what can be described by a deterministic lin-
ear function. For only two occasions of measurement,

we have to assume that the coefficients γt1 are identi-
cal. Otherwise, the variance of ξ (or the γt1 coeffi-
cients) would not be identified. For three or more
time-points, this constraint is not required.
Some Methodological Remarks
Note the way in which the latent variables have been
constructed in all three classes of models. We
started by describing a certain kind of random
experiment, which is the empirical phenomenon we
consider in LST theory. We showed how the sample
space Ω is structured and introduced the primitives
of the theory: the observables Yit, the observational-
unit variable U, and the situation variable St that
indicates the situation in which the unit is when the
observations Yit are made. Then we used the condi-
tional expectations of the observables Yit given U
and St to define the fundamental concepts of LST the-
ory. Next, we introduced assumptions with regard
to the relationships between these fundamental con-
cepts. These assumptions imply the existence of cer-
tain latent variables, the common latent-state
variables τt and the common latent-trait variable ξ.
Hence, instead of drawing an egg and giving it a nice
label, we constructed the latent variables as linear
functions of the conditional expectations of the
observables. Although we do not know the values of
these latent variables, we know that they exist and
that they are random variables referring to the same
random experiment as the observables. Perhaps
more important, knowing the observables Yit, we
also know the substantive meaning of their condi-
tional expectations and the latent variables, which
are linear functions of these conditional expecta-
tions. This constructive way of introducing latent
variables can also be followed in more complex
models. We start with introducing latent-state
change variables.
Latent-State Change Models
Modeling change has been puzzling researchers for
many decades (e.g., Collins & Horn, 1991; Collins
& Sayer, 2001; Cronbach & Furby, 1970; Harris,
1963). In 1997, Steyer et al. showed how to intro-
duce the difference between two latent-state vari-
ables as a single latent variable into a structural
equation model by specifying the loadings in a par-
ticular way. In 1993, Raykov showed that latent
Latent State–Trait Models
difference variables can also be introduced utilizing
a trivial equation such as
τ2 = τ1 + (τ2 – τ1).  (16)
Using this equation, the path diagram of the multi-
state model presented in Figure 14.2 turns to the
diagram presented in Figure 14.4.
For three occasions, we have the choice between
the baseline model (see Figure 14.5a) and the neigh-
bor model (Figure 14.5b; see also Steyer, Partchev,
& Shanahan, 2000). In the baseline model, the
latent-state change variables represent the latent-
state change compared with the first occasion of
measurement, whereas in the neighbor model, we
consider the latent change variables with respect to
adjacent time-points, that is, we consider change
between Times 1 and 2 as well as change between
Times 2 and 3.
A Linear Growth Curve Model
If we would like to formulate a model postulating
linear change in the latent states between three occa-
sions of measurement, the simplest way is to modify
the multistate model as specified in Figure 14.5c.
According to this model, the latent state at Occasion 2
is the sum of the latent-state variable at Time l plus
the latent change variable between Occasions 1 and
2, that is,
τ2 = τ1 + (τ2 – τ1),  (17)
ε 11 Y11
1
τ1
λ1
ε 21 Y21
1
ε 12 Y12
1
λ1
τ2 1 τ2 −τ1
ε 22 Y22
Figure 14.4.  Latent-state change model for
two observed variables Yit (i = variable, t = time-
point) measured on two occasions of measure-
ment. τt = latent-state factor; τ2 − τ1 = latent-
difference variable; λit1 = factor loading; εit = mea-
surement error variable. The factor loadings for
each observed variable have to be constrained to
be time-invariant.
297
Steyer, Geiser, and Fiege

(a) (b)
ε11 Y11 ε11 Y11
1 1
τ1 τ1
λ1 λ1
ε21 Y21 ε21 Y21

1 1

ε12 Y12 ε12 Y12

1 1
τ2 1 τ2 − τ1 τ2 1 τ2− τ1
λ1 λ1
ε22 Y22 ε22 Y22 1

ε13 Y13 ε13 Y13

1 1
τ3 1 τ3 − τ2 τ3 1 τ3− τ2
λ1 λ1
ε23 Y23 ε23 Y23

(c)
ε11 Y11
1
τ1
λ1
ε21 Y21

ε12 Y12
1
τ2 1 τ2 − τ1
λ1
ε22 Y22 1

ε13 Y13
1
τ3
λ1
ε23 Y23

Figure 14.5.  Latent-state change models for two observed variables Yit (i = variable, t = time-point) mea-
sured on three occasions of measurement: (a) Baseline change model. (b) Neighbor change model. (c) Linear
change model (linear growth curve model). τt = latent-state factor; τ2 − τ1 = latent-difference variable; λit1 =
factor loading; εit = measurement error variable. The factor loadings for each observed variable have to be con-
strained to be time-invariant.

whereas the latent state at Occasion 3 is the sum of
the latent-state variable at Time l plus two times the
latent change variable between Occasions 1 and 2,
that is,
τ3 = τ1 + 2 (τ2 – τ1).
Hence, in this model, we postulate a linear
growth curve for each and every unit, because a
value of the latent-state variable τt is the latent state
of unit u at time t. Comparing this model with one
of the change models depicted in Figures 14.5a and
14.5b allows testing the hypothesis of linear growth.
Of course, modeling quadratic and other growth
curves is possible as well. Mayer, Steyer, and
Partchev (in press) have presented a general way to
construct these models.
(18)
Latent-Trait Change Models
The ideas outlined thus far can also be extended to
modeling latent-trait change (e.g., Eid & Hoffmann,
1998). The goal of trait change models is to separate
occasion-specific (state-residual) influences from trait
change and measurement error. Trait change models
generally require more than just two occasions of

298

measurement. Otherwise, occasion-specific fluctua-
tions cannot be separated from true trait change. In
principle, we need at least two occasions for each
latent-trait variable for which we want to assess trait
change. If these design requirements are satisfied, we
may introduce latent-trait change variables using the
same principles as for the construction of the latent-
state change models. Steyer, Krambeer, and Han-
növer (2004) provided an example.
In addition, the approach described in Equations
17 and 18 can also be applied to the level of the
latent-trait variables (rather than latent-state vari-
ables) to test latent growth curves on the level of
latent-trait variables. In contrast to the latent-state
growth curve model described in the preceding para-
graphs, these models allow for a separation of the
growth process from occasion-specific influences and
are therefore more broadly applicable (Geiser, Keller,
& Lockhart, 2011). These models have sometimes
been referred to as curve-of-factors models (McArdle,
1988) or second-order growth models (e.g., Hancock,
Kuo, & Lawrence, 2001; Sayer & Cumsille, 2001)
because they model individual latent trajectories by
means of second-order factors, that is, the growth
curve components—as opposed to conventional
growth curve models that employ only a single indi-
cator per time-point. The advantage of second-order
growth curve models is that—similar to classical LST
models—they allow for a proper separation of sys-
tematic variance from measurement error variance,
whereas in conventional (first-order) growth models,
measurement error variance cannot be separated
from systematic occasion-specific variance because
there is only one single indicator per time-point.
Methods Factors
The classical LST models may not always show a
good fit in empirical applications. In principle, this
can happen for several reasons. For example, if there
are more than three occasions and if there is true
trait change, then the single-trait–multistate model
does not adequately represent the actual covariance
structure of the observables. Another reason for a
discrepancy between the covariance matrix implied
by the model and the actual covariance matrix of the
observables might be that the true-score variables of
Latent State–Trait Models
the observables may not be exactly identical within
time-points, even not in the sense that they are (per-
fect) linear functions of each other. In other words,
each observable may contain a measure-specific com-
ponent (sometimes also referred to as an indicator-
specific effect) that is not shared with the other
measures of the latent-state variable. Such a measure-
specific component, for example, can be due to a
specific response format, item wording, or rater
effects (see Eid & Diener, 2006). In cross-sectional
designs, this measure-specific component is not sep-
arable from random measurement error; however, as
we consider longitudinal designs in which the same
indicators are measured repeatedly, stable measure-
specific variance and measurement error variance
can be disentangled (see also Marsh & Grayson,
1994; Raffalovich & Bohrnstedt, 1987). The values
of these measure-specific components represent the
person-specific effects of using a particular measure
over another one, or in other terms, the person-­
specific effects of using a particular method (of mea-
surement) instead of another one. Hence, these
components are also called method effects.
Different approaches are available to model
person-specific method effects in longitudinal data.
The simplest way is to allow for correlated error vari-
ables of the same indicator over time (e.g., Sörbom,
1975). In MTMM research, this is known as the cor-
related uniqueness (CU) approach to modeling
method effects (Kenny, 1976; Marsh & Grayson,
1995). Although improving the fit of a model when
method effects are present, the specification of corre-
lated errors leaves these effects confounded with
measurement error. This has the undesirable implica-
tion that a systematic source of variance is not explic-
itly modeled, which leads to an ­underestimation of
ε11 Y11
1
ζ1
τ1
1
ε21 Y21
1
ν1
1
1
ξ
1
1
ν2
1
ε12 Y12
1
τ2
ε22 Y22
1
ζ2
Figure 14.6.  Single-trait/multistate model with m
method factors (νi).
299
Steyer, Geiser, and Fiege
the reliabilities of the observables in CU models. In
more sophisticated LST measurement models,
method effects are either modeled by defining addi-
tional latent variables (method factors) or by allowing
for measure-specific latent-trait variables (e.g., Bon-
nefon, Vautier, & Eid, 2007; Eid et al., 1999).
Historically, orthogonal method factors for each
of m indicators were introduced to model person-
specific method effects (e.g., Steyer et al., 1992; see
Figure 14.6), similar to a correlated traits-uncorrelated
methods approach in MTMM research (Marsh &
Grayson, 1995). Modeling one orthogonal method
factor for each measure in LST models has the disad-
vantage that these method factors cannot be con-
structively defined (Eid, 1996). Furthermore,
because method effects are assumed to be uncorre-
lated, the model may overfit the data and shared
method effects between similar methods are not
accounted for (Eid, 2000).
Method Factors Defined as Residuals
Recently, approaches that define a reference method
and consider only m − 1 correlated method factors
have gained popularity in MTMM research (Eid,
2000; Eid et al., 2003, 2008). This so-called residual
method factor approach has also been applied to
model method effects within the LST framework
(Courvoisier, 2006; Courvoisier, Nussbeck, Eid,
Geiser, & Cole, 2008; Eid et al., 1999; Geiser, 2009;
Geiser et al., 2010a, 2010b).
Let us look at Eid’s (2000) definition of a method
effect in more detail. Using the index r to denote the
reference method (or reference measure), we con-
sider the regression E(τ it τ rt ), where i ≠ r and
E(τ it τ rt ) denotes the conditional expectation
(regression) of a true-score variable τ it on the true-
score variable τ rt of the reference measure r at time t.
The residuals τ it− E(τ it τ rt ) of this regression are the
method variables (ν it ), as they reflect that part of a
nonreference true-score variable τ it that cannot be
predicted from the (reference) true-score variable τ rt:
ν it = τ it − E(τ it τ rt ). (19)
There is a separate method variable ν it for each
indicator i, i ≠ r . To actually separate method effects
from random measurement error, we again need to
introduce a homogeneity assumption. A reasonable
300
assumption is that all method variables pertaining to
the same observable i differ only by a multiplicative
constant  its :
ν it =  itsν is ,  its ∈IR. (20)
This assumption implies the existence of a com-
mon method factor ν i for each nonreference measure
as illustrated in Figure 14.7. Without loss of gener-
ality, we have selected the first measure as a refer-
ence in Figure 14.7, that is, r = 1; therefore, there is
not a method factor for the first measure. The equa-
tions for this model are
 + rt1τ rt + ε rt , for i = r
Yit =  rt 0  (21)
 it 0 + it1τ rt +  itν i + ε it , for i ≠ r,
where  it ∈ IR   .
The definition of method factors as regression
residuals with respect to a reference measure implies
that there are m −1 method factors ν i . Each of these
method factors has the expectation (true mean) of
zero and is uncorrelated with all state factors τ rt per-
taining to the same construct, but they may be corre-
lated with other method factors ν j as well as with
state factors pertaining to other constructs in multi-
construct LST models (see the section Multiconstruct
Models). The correlations Corr(ν i , ν j ) between differ-
ent method factors may be of interest if certain mea-
sures share a common method effect relative to the
reference measure (e.g., two items may be more simi-
lar in wording relative to a third item). With only two
measures and only two time-points, both loadings  it
on the method factor have to be fixed to a nonzero
value to achieve identification (e.g.,  i1 =  i 2 = 1). For
an application of the residual method factor approach
to LST models, see Eid et al. (1999).
ε11 Y11 ζ1
1
1
τ11
ε21 Y21
1
ξ
1
1
ε12 Y12
ν2
1 1
τ12
1
ε22 Y22 ζ2
Figure 14.7.  Single-trait/multistate model with
residual method factor (ν2) according to Eid’s (2000)
m − 1 approach.

Method Factors Defined as Differences
Between True-Score Variables
Suppose we have two observables that at each of two
occasions of measurement measure the same latent-
state variable. Then
τ11 = τ11   and   τ21 = τ11 (22)
as well as
τ12 = τ12   and   τ22 = τ12 (23)
will hold. In practice, however, this is very difficult
to achieve. So what if we fail? Then, instead of Equa-
tions 22 and 23, the equations
τ11 = τ11   and   τ21 = τ11 + (τ21 − τ11) (24)
as well as
τ12 = τ12   and   τ22 = τ12 + (τ22 − τ12)  (25)
still hold. In fact, these equations are tautological,
that is, they are always true. The differences τ21 −
τ11 and τ22 − τ12 between the two true-score vari-
ables at the two occasions are the systematic
differences between the two observables at each of
the two occasions. If the two observables are
intended to measure the same latent state, then the
differences
δ1 = τ21 − τ11   and   δ2 = τ22 − τ12 (26)
exactly represent the individual effects of using
Method 2 instead of Method 1 at time-points 1 and
2, respectively. Whereas δ1 represents the method
factor pertaining to Occasion 1, δ2 is the method
factor pertaining to Occasion 2 (see Pohl et al.,
2008).
Why should these two method factors be differ-
ent if exactly the same methods are applied at the
two occasions of measurement? Hence, it is plausi-
ble to assume δ1 = δ2, which allows us to drop the
index, that is,
δ = δ1 = δ2,  (27)
where δ represents the method factor assumed to
be identical for both occasions of measurement.
Note that τ11 is a constituting component of δ.
Hence, it will correlate with δ, and the same
applies to τ12. The resulting model is represented
in Figure 14.8.
Latent State–Trait Models
ε 11 Y11
1
1
τ11
ε 21 Y21
1
δ
ε 12 Y12 1
1
τ12
1
ε 22 Y22
Figure 14.8.  Multistate model
with latent difference method fac-
tor (δ).
Method Factors for Common Latent-State
Variables
Constructing method factors as latent difference
variables in the way outlined in Equations 24
through 26 implies that the latent-state variables
occurring in the path diagrams in Figures 14.7 and
14.8 are specific to the first measure. In fact, the
latent-state variables presented in the path diagram
are the true-score variable τ11 of the first observable
Y11 at Occasion 1 and the true-score variable τ12 of
the first observable Y12 at Occasion 2. If, however,
we would like to have a common latent-state variable
for both measures at each of the two time-points, we
can define such a common latent-state variable by
simply taking the averages
η1 = (τ11 + τ21)/2   and   η2 = (τ12 + τ22)/2 (28)
of the two true-score variables involved (for exten-
sions allowing for different loadings, also see Pohl &
Steyer, 2010). Now
τ11 = η1 + (τ11 − η1)   and   τ21 = η1 + (τ21 − η1) (29)
as well as
τ12 = η2 + (τ12 − η2)  and  τ22 = η2 + (τ22 − η2) (30)
trivially hold. Furthermore, some algebra shows that
τ11 − η1 = −(τ21 −η1) and τ12 − η2 = −(τ22 − η2). The
values of the difference variable τ11 − η1 are the devi-
ations of the Measure 1–specific individual latent-
state variables from the common latent-state
variable at Occasion 1. Again, it is plausible to
assume that the difference variables δ1 = τ11 − η1 and
δ2 = τ12 − η2 are identical because the observables Y11
and Y12 are assessed with identical measurement
301
Steyer, Geiser, and Fiege
ε 11 Y11
1
τ1
1
ε 21 Y21 1 et al. (2010a) provided detailed guidelines as to the
−1
δ applications of the residual method factor approach.
1
−1
ε 12 Y12
1 The LST Model With Measure-
τ2
1
ε 22 Y22
Figure 14.9.  Multistate model
with common latent-state factors
using an effect parametrization
for the method factor δ.
methods at the two occasions of measurement.
Hence, if we assume
δ = τ11 − η1 = τ12 − η2, (31)
the resulting model is represented in Figure 14.9.
In this model, the individual method effects are
represented by an effect parametrization that com-
pares the latent-state scores of Measures 1 and 2
with the average of the latent-state scores of the two
measures. In contrast, in the model displayed in Fig-
ure 14.8, the individual method effects are repre-
sented by a contrast parametrization that compares
the latent-state scores of Measure 2 with the latent-
state scores of the first measure. Both parametriza-
tions are equivalent to each other. Note, however,
that not only the contents of the method factors are
different between the two models. Instead, the con-
tent of the latent-state variables is different as well.
In the effect parametrization, there is a common
latent-state variable defined to be the average of the
two measure-specific latent-state variables τit. In the
contrast parametrization, there is a specific latent-
state variable, the specific latent-state variables τ1t
pertaining to the first measure. Hence, we have the
choice, but the choice has consequences for the sub-
stantive interpretation of both the method factors
and the common latent-state variables.
The same is true for Eid’s (2000) residual
method factor approach, as the meaning of the state
and method factors depends on the choice of the ref-
erence indicator in this approach. In general,
researchers should select an approach that yields
methods factors that are easily interpreted and
302
meaningful for the particular application at hand.
Geiser, Eid, and Nussbeck (2008) as well as Geiser
choice of a particular reference method in practical
Specific Trait Variables
Another way to account for method effects is to con-
sider as many trait factors in an LST model as there
are measures (as opposed to assuming only one gen-
eral trait factor for all indicators). The trait factors
in this model are measure-specific (e.g., Eid, 1996;
see Figure 14.10). High correlations among the
measure-specific trait factors indicate that the trait
components of the observables are essentially homo-
geneous (i.e., that method effects are small),
whereas moderate correlations suggest high method
specificity (i.e., each observable may reflect a differ-
ent facet of the construct).
The model with measure-specific trait factors has
the advantage that no method factors are needed to
model method effects and that each trait factor is
clearly interpretable as the stable component of a
specific observable. On the other hand, the model
leaves method effects confounded with trait factors.
Hence, in contrast to models with residual method
factors, variance components caused by a reference
trait cannot be separated from variance caused by a
specific trait. We suggest that the LST model with
measure-specific traits be used when researchers
assume that each observable represents a distinct
facet of a broadly defined construct. Conversely,
models with method factors seem to be more
ε11 Y 11
1 1
ζ1 ξ1
1
ε21 Y 21
1
1
ε12 Y 12
ζ2 1 ξ2
1 1
ε22 Y 22
Figure 14.10.  Latent state–trait model with
indicator-specific trait variables ξi.
 Latent State–Trait Models

ε 11 Y11 ζ1 ζ*1 Y*11 ε *11

1 * 1
τ11 τ 11
λ211 λ*211
ε21 Y21 Y*21 ε *21
1 1

ξ1 ξ *1

γ21 γ* 21
* *
ε12 Y12 Y 12 ε 12
1 1
τ12 τ* 12 *
λ221 λ 221
ε22 Y22 ζ2 ζ*2 Y*22 ε *22

Figure 14.11.  Multiconstruct latent state–trait model for two constructs.

suitable when theory suggests that the observables
are indicators of a single underlying concept and dif-
fer only slightly (e.g., because of different item
wording, etc.). For a recent application of the LST
model with measure-specific trait variables see Bon-
nefon, Vautier, and Eid (2007).
These basic ideas can be generalized to more
than two measures and more than two occasions of
measurement as well as to models with unequal
loadings of the observables on the latent variables
(see Pohl & Steyer, 2010). Furthermore, method
factors can also be combined with latent change
variables and with models including latent-trait
variables such as the single-trait/multistate model.
Geiser and Lockhart (in press) discussed different
approaches to account for method effects in LST
analysis in detail. Extensions of LST models to mod-
els incorporating more than one construct1 at a time
are discussed in the next section.
Multiconstruct Models
In multiconstruct LST models, state and trait com-
ponents of two or more constructs are considered
simultaneously (see Figure 14.11). Multiconstruct
LST models have been presented by Dumenci and
Windle (1998), Eid et al. (1994), Steyer et al.
(1990), Vautier (2004), and others. In these mod-
els, correlations between the trait components per-
taining to different psychological variables indicate
associations between the stable parts of these
variables. Correlations between state residual com-
ponents pertaining to the same measurement occa-
sion indicate the degree to which the effects of a
specific measurement occasion (or situation and
person–situation interaction effects) generalize
across different psychological variables. For exam-
ple, Eid et al. found a correlation of .78 between
the latent-trait variable pertaining to a mood-level
scale and the latent-trait variable underlying repeat-
edly measured mood states. In addition, Eid et al.
reported significant correlations between the state
residual factors pertaining to different constructs
on the same measurement occasion (.32 ≤ r ≤ .45)
indicating a substantial amount of shared occasion-
specific variance.
Schermelleh-Engel, Keith, Moosbrugger, and
Hodapp (2004) extended multiconstruct LST mod-
els to hierarchical LST models. In these models, a
general (third-order) trait factor is introduced to
separate variance components caused by general and
specific trait components (e.g., a general intelligence
component as opposed to specific facets of intelli-
gence). Although the hierarchical LST models pro-
posed by Schermelleh-Engel et al. allowed for the
estimation of interesting additional variance
­components, the third-order latent variables intro-
duced in the models are not well defined and, as a
consequence, their meaning is less clear than the
meaning of the variables in the models presented in
this chapter.

We feel that there has not yet been a satisfactory suggestion as to how the term construct should be defined in psychology and what exactly it refers to.
1

We use the term here nonetheless to refer to studies that attempt to study the relation between the trait and state components of different psychologi-
cal variables (e.g., depression and anxiety).

303
Steyer, Geiser, and Fiege
Other Extensions of LST Models
LST models have been extended in a number of
ways. Eid (1995, 1996; see also Eid & Hoffmann,
1998) has shown how LST models can be defined
for ordered categorical (ordinal) outcomes. Tisak
and Tisak (2000) have combined the idea of model-
ing latent-trait change through growth curve models
with the idea of modeling occasion specificity
through LST models and have presented a compre-
hensive framework for modeling variability and
change in a single model. Cole, Martin, and Steiger
(2005) have presented a so-called trait–state occa-
sion model that features an autoregressive compo-
nent on the level of the state residual variables.
Courvoisier (2006; Courvoisier, Eid, & Nussbeck,
2007) extended the classical LST model to a mixture
distribution model. Mixture distribution LST mod-
els allow identifying a priori unknown subgroups
(latent classes) of individuals that differ, for exam-
ple, in their traitedness or proneness to occasion-
specific influences.
Another line of research has developed LST models
for the case of a multimethod assessment (e.g., differ-
ent raters assessing depression and anxiety of children
on multiple time-points). Multimethod LST models
(Courvoisier, 2006; Courvoisier et al., 2008; Scher-
penzeel & Saris, 2007; Vautier, 2004) allow research-
ers to answer questions of stability versus occasion
specificity simultaneously for different methods.
Conclusion
About 20 years ago, LST theory was introduced and
the first LST models were applied to psychological
data. As shown in this chapter, since then LST the-
ory has seen numerous extensions that facilitate and
broaden its applicability in psychological research.
We see as one of the most important features of LST
theory the fact that the underlying theoretical con-
cepts of this theory are clearly defined, leading to a
clear interpretation of the latent variables in LST
models. The various extensions of basic LST theory
presented in this chapter illustrate that the rigorous
mathematical foundation and constructive defini-
tion of the latent variables do not attenuate but
rather enhance the flexibility of the approach while
at the same time allowing for a clear interpretation
304
of all theoretical concepts defined within this frame-
work. Other latent variable models often suffer in
their theoretical strength and empirical applicability
if latent variables are not constructively defined but
just assumed to be there—without explicating the
random experiment that underlies the phenomenon
under study and without specifying how the scores
of the latent variables depend on the outcomes of
the random experiment.
A good example is the so-called correlated traits-
correlated methods (CTCM) model in MTMM
research (e.g., Marsh & Grayson, 1995). In this
model, each indicator is thought to be influenced by
a latent trait, a latent method, and an error compo-
nent. All trait factors can be intercorrelated as can be
all methods factors, but trait and methods factors
are assumed to be uncorrelated. The latent variables
in the CTCM model cannot be constructively
defined, and consequently, their meaning and inter-
pretation remains dubious. Furthermore, the model
lacks theoretical rigor, as it is not clear, for example,
on which theoretical rationale the assumption of
uncorrelated traits and methods is based.
One advantage of the constructive definition of
latent variables is that we know exactly which corre-
lations among latent variables are zero by definition.
For example, in LST theory, trait variables and state
residuals cannot be correlated by definition of these
theoretical concepts (cf. Exhibit 14.1). Hence, the
constructive definition of latent variables as func-
tions of true-score variables makes clear which
latent variables can be correlated in empirical appli-
cations and which cannot. Models in which latent
variables or “factors” are not formally defined but
simply “assumed to be” there may not allow for a
clear interpretation of these variables and may
obfuscate the question as to which correlations are
admissible and which are not. We believe that in the
future, other areas of latent variable research will
greatly benefit from this way of defining latent vari-
ables constructively.
References
Anastasi, A. (1983). Traits, states, and situations: A com-
prehensive view. In H. Wainer & S. Messick (Eds.),
Principles of modern psychological measurement
(pp. 345–356). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bonnefon, J.-F., Vautier, S., & Eid, M. (2007). Modeling
individual differences in contrapositive reason-
ing with continuous latent state and trait variables.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1403–1413.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.017
Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An
analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 80,
307–336. doi:10.1037/h0035592
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The data box: Its ordering of total
resources in terms of possible relational systems. In
R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experi-
mental psychology (pp. 67–128). Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.
Cattell, R. B. (1979). Personality and learning theory
(Vol. 1). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Cattell, R. B., & Scheier, I. H. (1961). The meaning and
measurement of neuroticism and anxiety. New York,
NY: Ronald.
Cole, D. A., Martin, N. M., & Steiger, J. H. (2005).
Empirical and conceptual problems with longitu-
dinal trait-state models: Introducing a trait-state-
occasion model. Psychological Methods, 10, 3–20.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.3
Collins, L. M., & Horn, J. L. (Eds.). (1991). Best methods
for the analysis of change: Recent advances, unan-
swered questions, future directions. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
doi:10.1037/10099-000
Collins, L. M., & Sayer, A. G. (Eds.). (2001). New
methods for the analysis of change. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
doi:10.1037/10409-000
Courvoisier, D. S. (2006). Unfolding the constituents of
psychological scores: Development and application
of mixture and multitrait-multimethod LST models
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Geneva, Switzerland.
Courvoisier, D. S., Eid, M., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2007).
Mixture distribution state–trait-models: Basic ideas
and applications. Psychological Methods, 12, 80–104.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.80
Courvoisier, D. S., Nussbeck, F. W., Eid, M., Geiser, C.,
& Cole, D. A. (2008). Analyzing the convergent
validity of states and traits: Development and appli-
cation of multimethod latent state–trait models.
Psychological Assessment, 20, 270–280. doi:10.1037/
a0012812
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How should we
measure “change”—or should we? Psychological
Bulletin, 74, 68–80. doi:10.1037/h0029382
Deinzer, R., Steyer, R., Eid, M., Notz, P., Schwenkmezger,
P., Ostendorf, F., & Neubauer, A. (1995). Situational
effects in trait assessment: The FPI, NEOFFI and EPI
questionnaires. European Journal of Personality, 9,
1–23. doi:10.1002/per.2410090102
Latent State–Trait Models
Dumenci, L., & Windle, M. (1998). A multitrait-
multioccasion generalization of the latent
trait-state model: Description and applica-
tion. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 391–410.
doi:10.1080/10705519809540114
Eid, M. (1995). Modelle der Messung von Personen in
Situationen [Models for measuring persons in situ-
ations]. Weinheim, Germany: Psychologie Verlags
Union.
Eid, M. (1996). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis
for polytomous item responses: Model definition and
model selection on the basis of stochastic measure-
ment theory. Methods of Psychological Research —
Online, 1, 65–85.
Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with
minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65, 241–261.
doi:10.1007/BF02294377
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of mul-
timethod measurement in psychology. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
doi:10.1037/11383-000
Eid, M., & Hoffmann, L. (1998). Measuring variability
and change with an item response model for polyto-
mous variables. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 23, 193–215.
Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., Nussbeck, F. W., & Trierweiler,
L. (2003). Separating trait effects from trait-specific
method effects in multitrait-multimethod analysis: A
multiple indicator CTC(M-1) model. Psychological
Methods, 8, 38–60. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.1.38
Eid, M., Notz, P., Steyer, R., & Schwenkmezger, P.
(1994). Validating scales for the assessment of mood
level and variability by latent state–trait analyses.
Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 63–76.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90111-2
Eid, M., Nussbeck, F. W., Geiser, C., Cole, D. A.,
Gollwitzer, M., & Lischetzke, T. (2008). Structural
equation modeling of multitrait-multimethod data:
Different models for different types of methods.
Psychological Methods, 13, 230–253. doi:10.1037/
a0013219
Eid, M., Schneider, C., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1999). Do
you feel better or worse? The validity of perceived
deviations of mood states from mood traits. European
Journal of Personality,13, 283–306. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-0984(199907/08)13:4<283::AID-
PER341>3.0.CO;2-0
Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (Eds.). (1976).
Interactional psychology and personality. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On pre-
dicting most of the people much of the time. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.1097
305
Steyer, Geiser, and Fiege
Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: II.
Implications for psychological research. American
Psychologist, 35, 790–806. doi:10.1037/0003-066-
X.35.9.790
Geiser, C. (2009). Multitrait-multimethod-multioccasion
modeling. Munich, Germany: AVM.
Geiser, C., Eid, M., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2008). On the
meaning of the latent variables in the CT-C(M-1)
model: A comment on Maydeu-Olivares &
Coffman (2006). Psychological Methods, 13, 49–57.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.13.1.49
Geiser, C., Eid, M., Nussbeck, F. W., Courvoisier, D.
S., & Cole, D. A. (2010a). Analyzing true change
in longitudinal multitrait-multimethod studies:
Application of a multimethod change model to
depression and anxiety in children. Developmental
Psychology, 46, 29–45. doi:10.1037/a0017888
Geiser, C., Eid, M., Nussbeck, F. W., Courvoisier, D.
S., & Cole, D. A. (2010b). Multitrait-multimethod
change modeling. Advances in Statistical Analysis, 94,
185–201. doi:10.1007/s10182-010-0127-0
Geiser, C., Keller, B., & Lockhart, G. (2011). First versus
second order latent growth curve models: Some insights
from latent state–trait theory. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Geiser, C., & Lockhart, G. (in press). A comparison of
four approaches to account for method effects in
latent state–trait analyses. Psychological Methods.
Hagemann, D., Hewig, J., Seifert, J., Naumann, E., &
Bartussek, D. (2005). The latent state–trait structure
of resting EEG asymmetry: Replication and exten-
sion. Psychophysiology, 42, 740–752. doi:10.1111/
j.1469-8986.2005.00367.x
Hagemann, D., & Naumann, E. (2009). States vs. traits:
An integrated model for the test of Eysenck’s
arousal/arousability hypothesis. Journal of Individual
Differences, 30, 87–99. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.
30.2.87
Hagemann, D., Naumann, E., Thayer, J. F., & Bartussek,
D. (2002). Does resting electroencephalograph
asymmetry reflect a trait? An application of latent
state–trait theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 619–641. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.
82.4.619
Hancock, G. R., Kuo, W., & Lawrence, F. R. (2001).
An illustration of second-order latent growth
models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 470–489.
doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_7
Harris, C. W. (Ed.). (1963). Problems in measuring
change.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Hellhammer, J., Fries, E., Schweisthal, O. W., Schlotz,
W., Stone, A. A., & Hagemann, D. (2007). Several
daily measurements are necessary to reliably assess
the cortisol rise after awakening: State- and trait
306
components. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 80–86.
doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2006.10.005
Hermes, M., Hagemann, D., Britz, P., Lieser, S., Bertsch,
K., Naumann, E., & Walter, C. (2009). Latent
state–trait structure of cerebral blood flow in a
resting state. Biological Psychology, 80, 196–202.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.09.003
Hertzog, C., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1987). Beyond autore-
gressive models: Some implications of the trait-state
distinction for the structural modeling of devel-
opmental change. Child Development, 58, 93–109.
doi:10.2307/1130294
Kenny, D. A. (1976). An empirical application of confir-
matory factor analysis to the multitrait–multimethod
matrix. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12,
247–252. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(76)90055-X
Kirschbaum, C., Steyer, R., Eid, M., Patalla, U.,
Schwenkmezger, P., & Hellhammer, D. H.
(1990). Cortisol and behavior: 2. Application
of a latent state–trait model to salivary corti-
sol. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 15, 297–307.
doi:10.1016/0306-4530(90)90080-S
Majcen, A-M., Steyer, R., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1988).
Konsistenz und spezifität bei eigenschafts- und
zustandsangst [Consistency and specificity of trait
anxiety and state anxiety]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle
und Diagnostische Psychologie, 9, 105–120.
Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1994). Longitudinal con-
firmatory factor analysis: Common, time-specific,
item-specific, and residual-error components of
variance. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 116–145.
doi:10.1080/10705519409539968
Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. A. (1995). Latent variable
models of multitrait-multimethod data. In R. H.
Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling. Concepts,
issues, and applications (pp. 177–198). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayer, A., Steyer, R., & Partchev, I. (in press). A general
way to model growth curves and true intraindividual
change. Structural Equation Modeling.
McArdle, J. J. (1988). Dynamic but structural equation
modeling of repeated measures data. In R. B. Cattell
& J. Nesselroade (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate
experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 561–614). New
York, NY: Plenum Press.
Mischel, W. (1998). Personality and assessment. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Nesselroade, J. R., & Bartsch, T. W. (1977). Multivariate
perspectives on the construct validity of the trait-
state distinction. In R. B. Cattell & R. M. Dreger
(Eds.), Handbook of modern personality theory
(pp. 221–238). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Ormel, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1991). Stability and change
in psychological distress and their relationship

with self-esteem and locus of control: A dynamic
equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 288–299. doi:10.1037/0022-3514-
.60.2.288
Pohl, S., & Steyer, R. (2010). Modeling common traits
and method effects in multitrait-multimethod
analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research,45, 45–72.
doi:10.1080/00273170903504729
Pohl, S., Steyer, R., & Kraus, K. (2008). Modelling
method effects as individual causal effects. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General),171,
41–63.
Raffalovich, L. E., & Bohrnstedt, G. W. (1987). Common,
specific, and error variance components of fac-
tor models: Estimation with longitudinal data.
Sociological Methods and Research, 15, 385–405.
doi:10.1177/0049124187015004003
Raykov, T. (1993). On estimating true change interrela-
tionships with other variables. Quality and Quantity,
27, 353–370. doi:10.1007/BF01102498
Sayer, A. G., & Cumsille, P. E. (2001). Second-order
latent growth models. In L. M. Collins & A. G. Sayer
(Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp.
179–200). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/10409-006
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Keith, N., Moosbrugger, H.,
& Hodapp, V. (2004). Decomposing person and
occasion-specific effects: An extension of latent state–
trait theory to hierarchical LST models. Psychological
Methods, 9, 198–219. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.198
Scherpenzeel, A., & Saris, W. E. (2007). Multitrait-
multimethod models for longitudinal research.
In K. van Montfort, A. Satorra, & H. Oud (Eds.),
Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sci-
ences (pp. 381–401). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmitt, M., Schwartz, S. H., Steyer, R., & Schmitt, T.
(1993). Measurement models for the Schwartz
Values Inventory. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 9, 107–121.
Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2005). A latent state–trait
analysis of implicit and explicit personality measures.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21,
100–107. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.100
Sörbom, D. (1975). Detection of correlated errors in lon-
gitudinal data. British Journal of Mathematical and
Statistical Psychology, 28, 138–151.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state.
In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in
theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 23–49). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Steyer, R. (1987). Konsistenz und Spezifität: Definition
zweier zentraler Begriffe der Differentiellen
Psychologie und ein einfaches Modell zu ihrer
Identifikation [Consistency and specificity:
Definition of two central concepts of differential
Latent State–Trait Models
psychology and a simple model for their identifica-
tion]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische
Psychologie, 8, 245–258.
Steyer, R. (1988). Experiment, Regression und Kausalität.
die logische Struktur kausaler Regressionsmodelle
[Experiment, regression, and causality. The logical
structure of causal regression models]. (Unpublished
habilitation thesis). University of Trier, Trier, Germany.
Steyer, R. (1989). Models of classical psychometric
test theory as stochastic measurement models:
Representation, uniqueness, meaningfulness,
identifiability, and testability. Methodika, 3,
25–60.
Steyer, R. (2005). Analyzing individual and aver-
age causal effects via structural equation models.
Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1, 39–54.
Steyer, R., Eid, M., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1997).
Modeling true intraindividual change: True change
as a latent variable. Methods of Psychological
Research–Online, 2, 21–33.
Steyer, R., Ferring, D., & Schmitt, M. J. (1992). States and
traits in psychological assessment. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 8, 79–98.
Steyer, R., Krambeer, S., & Hannöver, W. (2004).
Modeling latent trait-change. In K. Van Montfort,
H. Oud, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Recent developments on
structural equation modeling: Theory and applications
(pp. 337–357). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Press.
Steyer, R., Majcen, A.-M., Schwenkmezger, P., &
Buchner, A. (1989). A latent state–trait anxiety
model and its application to determine consistency
and specificity coefficients. Anxiety Research, 1,
281–299.
Steyer, R., Nagel, W., Partchev, I., & Mayer, A. (in press).
Measure, probability and regression. New York, NY:
Springer.
Steyer, R., Partchev, I., & Shanahan, M. (2000). Modeling
true intra-individual change in structural equation
models: The case of poverty and children’s psycho-
social adjustment. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, &
J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multiple-
group data: Practical issues, applied approaches,
and specific examples (pp. 109–126). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Steyer, R., & Schmitt, M. (1990a). The effects of aggre-
gation across and within occasions on consistency,
specificity, and reliability. Methodika, 4, 58–94.
Steyer, R., & Schmitt, M. J. (1990b). Latent state–trait
models in attitude research. Quality and Quantity, 24,
427–445. doi:10.1007/BF00152014
Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent
state–trait theory and research in personal-
ity and individual differences. European Journal
307
 Steyer, Geiser, and Fiege
of Personality, 13, 389–408. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5<389::AID-
PER361>3.0.CO;2-A
Steyer, R., Schwenkmezger, P., & Auer, A. (1990). The
emotional and cognitive components of trait anxiety:
A latent state–trait model. Personality and Individual
Differences, 11, 125–134. doi:10.1016/0191-8869-
(90)90004-B
Tisak, J., & Tisak, M. S. (2000). Permanency and
ephemerality of psychological measures with appli-
cation to organizational commitment. Psychological
308
View publication stats
Methods, 5, 175–198. doi:10.1037/1082-989-
X.5.2.175
Vautier, S. (2004). A longitudinal SEM approach to STAI
data: Two comprehensive multitrait-multistate
models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83,
167–179. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8302_11
Vautier, S., Steyer, R., & Boomsma, A. (2008). The
true-change model with individual method effects:
Reliability issues. British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology, 61, 379–399.
doi:10.1348/000711007X206826