Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Reply to ‘Critiques of network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science’

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. Borsboom, D. et al. Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 1, 58 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Neal, Z. P. et al. Critiques of network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00177-9 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hill, A. B. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58, 295–300 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Molenaar, P. C. M. A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement 2, 201–218 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M. & Grasman, R. P. P. P. A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychol. Methods 20, 102–116 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fried, E. I., van Borkulo, C. D. & Epskamp, S. On the importance of estimating parameter uncertainty in network psychometrics: a response to Forbes et al. (2019). Multivariate Behav. Res. 56, 243–248 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Borsboom, D. et al. False alarm? A comprehensive reanalysis of “Evidence that psychopathology symptom networks have limited replicability” by Forbes, Wright, Markon, and Krueger (2017). J. Abnorm. Psychol. 126, 989–999 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Epskamp, S. et al. Investigating the utility of fixed-margin sampling in network psychometrics. Multivariate Behav. Res. 56, 314–328 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones, P. J., Williams, D. R. & McNally, R. J. Sampling variability is not nonreplication: a Bayesian reanalysis of Forbes, Wright, Markon, and Krueger. Multivariate Behav. Res. 56, 249–255 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article. All authors reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denny Borsboom.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borsboom, D., Deserno, M.K., Rhemtulla, M. et al. Reply to ‘Critiques of network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science’. Nat Rev Methods Primers 2, 91 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00178-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00178-8

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing