How to model cross-lagged relations in panel data continues to be a source of disagreement in psychological research. While the cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) was the modeling approach of choice for many years, it has also been criticized repeatedly for its inability to separate within-person dynamics from stable between-person differences. Hence, various alternative models that disentangle these forms of variability have been proposed, and these are now rapidly gaining popularity. But not everyone agrees this is the right way forward. CLPM advocates point out that many psychological theories are concerned with longer-lasting differences between individuals, while these differences are not allowed to contribute to the estimation of cross-lagged effects in the novel within-between approaches. Reasoning this way, it is argued that the CLPM is superior when studying such processes, precisely because it includes the chronic between-person differences when estimating prospective effects. The goal of the current paper is to consider this within-between dispute in its broader context and to examine various directions in which this discussion needs expansion. To this end, three different perspectives are adopted: that of the study design, patterns in empirical data, and the nature of our research questions. It will be argued that to move forward, we need to look beyond the narrow focus on how to model our correlational panel data. Progress will involve theorizing more deliberately about the timescale that a process operates on, being more explicit about our research questions, considering alternative designs and models, and familiarizing ourselves with relevant discussions in other disciplines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

交叉滞后小组研究中的内部争议以及如何向前推进。

如何对面板数据中的交叉滞后关系进行建模仍然是心理学研究中分歧的根源。虽然交叉滞后面板模型（CLPM）多年来一直是首选的建模方法，但它也因其无法将人内动态与稳定的人际差异分开而反复受到批评。因此，人们提出了各种可以解开这些形式的变异性的替代模型，并且这些模型现在正在迅速流行。但并非所有人都认为这是正确的前进方向。CLPM 倡导者指出，许多心理学理论都关注个体之间更持久的差异，而这些差异不允许有助于估计新颖的中间方法中的交叉滞后效应。以这种方式推理，有人认为 CLPM 在研究此类过程时更为优越，正是因为它在估计预期效果时包含了人与人之间的长期差异。本文的目标是在更广泛的背景下考虑这一内部争议，并研究该讨论需要扩展的各个方向。为此，采用了三种不同的视角：研究设计、经验数据模式以及我们研究问题的性质。有人认为，要向前迈进，我们需要超越狭隘的关注如何对相关面板数据进行建模。进步将涉及更谨慎地对过程运行的时间尺度进行理论分析，更明确地了解我们的研究问题，考虑替代设计和模型，以及熟悉其他学科的相关讨论。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA，保留所有权利）。