How Can We Learn About Developmental Processes From Cross-Sectional Studies, or Can We?

OBJECTIVE: Cross-sectional studies are often used in psychiatric research as a basis of longitudinal inferences about developmental or disease processes. While the limitations of such usage are often acknowledged, these are often understated. The authors describe how such inferences are often, and s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of psychiatry 2000-02, Vol.157 (2), p.163-171
Main Authors: Kraemer, Helena Chmura, Yesavage, Jerome A., Taylor, Joy L., Kupfer, David
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aging - physiology
Biological and medical sciences
Cross-Sectional Studies
Disease Progression
Epidemiologic Factors
Errors
Evaluation
Human Development
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Medical sciences
Mental disorders
Mental Disorders - diagnosis
Mental Disorders - epidemiology
Methodology. Experimentation
Processes
Psychiatry
Psychiatry - standards
Psychiatry - statistics & numerical data
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design - standards
Research Design - statistics & numerical data
Techniques and methods
Terminology as Topic
Time Factors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:OBJECTIVE: Cross-sectional studies are often used in psychiatric research as a basis of longitudinal inferences about developmental or disease processes. While the limitations of such usage are often acknowledged, these are often understated. The authors describe how such inferences are often, and sometimes seriously, misleading. METHOD: Why and how these inferences mislead are here demonstrated on an intuitive level, by using simulated data inspired by real problems in psychiatric research. >RESULTS: Four factors with major roles in the relationship between cross-sectional studies and longitudinal inferences are selection of time scale, type of developmental process studied, reliability of measurement, and clarity of terminology. The authors suggest how to recognize inferential errors when they occur, describe how to protect against such errors in future research, and delineate the circumstances in which only longitudinal studies can answer crucial questions. CONCLUSIONS: The simple conclusion is that one must always use the results of cross-sectional studies to draw inferences about longitudinal processes with trepidation.
ISSN:0002-953X
1535-7228
DOI:10.1176/appi.ajp.157.2.163