Dyadic Score Model (DSM)

Pascal Küng

library(dyadMLM)
has_glmmTMB <- requireNamespace("glmmTMB", quietly = TRUE)
dsm_fitted_alt <- "Fitted DSM diagram unavailable."

This vignette focuses on the Dyadic Score Model (DSM) for distinguishable dyads and its relationship to the distinguishable Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM). The DSM expresses associations in terms of the dyad’s shared level and the directional difference between partners (Iida et al. 2018).

For the broader package workflow and an overview of the available model-specific vignettes, including the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model and Dyad-Individual Model, see the online package overview.

Preparing DSM Data

A DSM requires an explicitly declared direction. This direction should be substantively meaningful when the directional coefficients are interpreted. Here, c("female", "male") defines every difference as female minus male.

cross_dsm_data <- dyadMLM::prepare_dyad_data(
  dyads_cross,
  dyad = coupleID,
  member = personID,
  role = gender,
  predictors = provided_support,
  model_types = "dsm",
  # All three observed compositions in `dyads_cross` are detected and retained by
  # default. This example focuses on `female-male` dyads, so we restrict the
  # analysis here.
  keep_compositions = "female-male",
  dsm_role_order = c("female", "male")
)

print(cross_dsm_data, n = 4)
#> # dyadMLM data
#> # Rows: 240 | Dyads: 120 | Intensive longitudinal: no
#> # Structure: dyad = coupleID, member = personID, role = gender
#> # DSM direction: female - male
#> #
#> # Dyad compositions:
#> # female_x_male distinguishable 120 dyads
#> #
#> # Added columns:
#> #   .dy_composition              inferred dyad composition
#> #   .dy_composition_role         composition-specific member role
#> #   .dy_is_{comp-role}           composition-role indicator columns
#> #   .dy_dsm_role_contrast        DSM role contrast: +0.5 for the first declared
#> #                                role and -0.5 for the second declared role
#> #   .dy_{pred}_dyad_mean_gmc     dyad-mean predictor: dyad's average predictor
#> #                                level, grand-mean centered
#> #   .dy_{pred}_within_dyad_diff  DSM signed predictor difference: first
#> #                                declared role minus second declared role
#> #
#> # A tibble: 240 × 13
#>   personID coupleID gender dyad_composition closeness provided_support
#>      <int>    <int> <fct>  <fct>                <dbl>            <dbl>
#> 1        1        1 female female_x_male         4.77             4.49
#> 2        2        1 male   female_x_male         4.46             4.76
#> 3        3        2 female female_x_male         6.44             4.09
#> 4        4        2 male   female_x_male         5.99             6.20
#> # ℹ 236 more rows
#> # ℹ 7 more variables: .dy_composition <fct>, .dy_composition_role <fct>,
#> #   .dy_is_female_x_male_female <dbl>, .dy_is_female_x_male_male <dbl>,
#> #   .dy_dsm_role_contrast <dbl>, .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc <dbl>,
#> #   .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff <dbl>

For predictor values $X_{\mathrm{female}}$ and $X_{\mathrm{male}}$, dyadMLM then creates:

• .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc $= \frac{X_{\mathrm{female}} + X_{\mathrm{male}}}{2} - \mu_X$ (with $\mu_X$ representing the sample grand mean of the dyad-level predictor means)

• .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff $= X_{\mathrm{female}} - X_{\mathrm{male}}$

• .dy_dsm_role_contrast $= +0.5$ for female and $-0.5$ for male.

The dyad mean and signed difference are repeated on both member rows. The outcome remains unchanged and no transformation is needed.

Cross-Sectional Gaussian DSM

For a cross-sectional Gaussian DSM, a correlated dyad random intercept and role-contrast slope represent unexplained outcome-level and outcome-difference variation.

Conceptual cross-sectional DSM. Predictor mean and predictor difference each predict both outcome scores.

The same model can be displayed in the individual-member rows used by the long-format multilevel model.

Individual-level representation of the cross-sectional DSM used for the long-format multilevel model. The centered predictor mean and female-minus-male predictor difference appear on both member rows. For the female outcome, the intercept and slopes add one-half of the corresponding outcome-difference parameters. For the male outcome, they subtract one-half. The female and male residuals may have different variances and covary.

The path labels correspond directly to the terms in the model below:

dsm_model <- glmmTMB::glmmTMB(
  closeness ~

    # Outcome-level intercept
    1 +

    # Predictor level -> outcome level (a11)
    .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc +

    # Predictor difference -> outcome level (a12)
    .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff +

    # Outcome-difference intercept (a20)
    .dy_dsm_role_contrast +

    # Predictor level -> outcome difference (a21)
    .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +

    # Predictor difference -> outcome difference (a22)
    .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +

    # Outcome-level and outcome-difference residual variances and their covariance
    us(1 + .dy_dsm_role_contrast | coupleID),
  dispformula = ~ 0,
  family = gaussian(),
  data = cross_dsm_data
)

summary(dsm_model)
#>  Family: gaussian  ( identity )
#> Formula:          
#> closeness ~ 1 + .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc + .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff +  
#>     .dy_dsm_role_contrast + .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +  
#>     .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +  
#>     us(1 + .dy_dsm_role_contrast | coupleID)
#> Dispersion:                 ~0
#> Data: cross_dsm_data
#> 
#>       AIC       BIC    logLik -2*log(L)  df.resid 
#>     615.1     646.5    -298.6     597.1       231 
#> 
#> Random effects:
#> 
#> Conditional model:
#>  Groups   Name                  Variance Std.Dev. Corr 
#>  coupleID (Intercept)           0.5085   0.7131        
#>           .dy_dsm_role_contrast 0.9773   0.9886   0.02 
#> Number of obs: 240, groups:  coupleID, 120
#> 
#> Conditional model:
#>                                                             Estimate Std. Error
#> (Intercept)                                                  5.07753    0.06691
#> .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc                           1.46596    0.09224
#> .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff                        0.10107    0.07577
#> .dy_dsm_role_contrast                                        1.01425    0.09277
#> .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc:.dy_dsm_role_contrast     0.71929    0.12788
#> .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast  0.92366    0.10505
#>                                                             z value Pr(>|z|)
#> (Intercept)                                                   75.88  < 2e-16
#> .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc                            15.89  < 2e-16
#> .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff                          1.33    0.182
#> .dy_dsm_role_contrast                                         10.93  < 2e-16
#> .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc:.dy_dsm_role_contrast       5.62 1.86e-08
#> .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast    8.79  < 2e-16
#>                                                                
#> (Intercept)                                                 ***
#> .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc                          ***
#> .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff                          
#> .dy_dsm_role_contrast                                       ***
#> .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc:.dy_dsm_role_contrast    ***
#> .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast ***
#> ---
#> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Interpreting the DSM paths

For the outcomes given the predictors, the long-format model estimates the same paths as the conventional score-based DSM (Iida et al. 2018).

In the conventional score-based representation, the predictors are decomposed in the same way:

$$X_{\mathrm{mean}} = \frac{X_{\mathrm{female}} + X_{\mathrm{male}}}{2} - \mu_X, \qquad X_{\mathrm{diff}} = X_{\mathrm{female}} - X_{\mathrm{male}},$$

where $\mu_X$ is the sample grand mean of the dyad-level predictor means.

The outcomes are also decomposed:

$$Y_{\mathrm{mean}} = \frac{Y_{\mathrm{female}} + Y_{\mathrm{male}}}{2}, \qquad Y_{\mathrm{diff}} = Y_{\mathrm{female}} - Y_{\mathrm{male}}.$$

The long-format model fitted here does not create $Y_{\mathrm{mean}}$ and $Y_{\mathrm{diff}}$ as observed variables. Instead, it uses the member-level outcome directly. With complete outcome pairs, this is an equivalent parameterization of the same conditional outcome regressions.

Consider the conceptual SEM formulas:

$$\widehat{Y_{\mathrm{mean}}} = a_{10} + a_{11}X_{\mathrm{mean}} + a_{12}X_{\mathrm{diff}},$$

$$\widehat{Y_{\mathrm{diff}}} = a_{20} + a_{21}X_{\mathrm{mean}} + a_{22}X_{\mathrm{diff}}.$$

The fitted paths for this example are:

Fitted cross-sectional DSM for the example data. The nodes identify the mean and difference scores; edge and intercept labels show the estimated DSM coefficients, and the residual labels show the estimated score-component standard deviations and correlation.

The fixed effects from our MLM model map directly to these paths as such:

Long-format fixed effect	DSM SEM path and interpretation
Intercept	$a_{10}$: expected dyad-average closeness at the sample-average provided-support level and no female-male support difference
Provided-support dyad mean	$a_{11}$: predictor level $\rightarrow$ outcome level
Provided-support difference	$a_{12}$: predictor difference $\rightarrow$ outcome level
DSM role contrast	$a_{20}$: expected female-minus-male outcome difference at the predictor reference values
Dyad mean $\times$ role contrast	$a_{21}$: predictor level $\rightarrow$ outcome difference
Provided-support difference $\times$ role contrast	$a_{22}$: predictor difference $\rightarrow$ outcome difference

Thus, for example, $a_{12}$ is the change in dyad-average closeness associated with a one-unit larger female-minus-male provided-support difference, holding support level constant. In contrast, $a_{22}$ is the change in the female-minus-male closeness difference associated with that same one-unit larger support difference, holding support level constant. The $a_{12}$ and $a_{21}$ coefficients are the DSM cross-paths. They are omitted from the reduced DSM but are needed for the full model.

The random intercept variance is unexplained variation in outcome level, and the random role-contrast slope variance is unexplained variation in the full directional outcome difference. Their covariance indicates whether unexplained outcome level and unexplained outcome difference are associated.

The curved arrow $\rho_{r_m r_d}$ is the scale-free correlation between the outcome-mean residual and the outcome-difference residual. It is not the female-male residual correlation $\rho_{\epsilon_F\epsilon_M}$ from the APIM.

The DSM uses the full female-minus-male difference:

$$e_{\mathrm{F}} = r_{\mathrm{m}} + \frac{1}{2}r_{\mathrm{d}}, \qquad e_{\mathrm{M}} = r_{\mathrm{m}} - \frac{1}{2}r_{\mathrm{d}}.$$

Therefore, this relationship applies:

$$\operatorname{Cov}(r_{\mathrm{m}},r_{\mathrm{d}}) = \frac{\operatorname{Var}(e_{\mathrm{F}})-\operatorname{Var}(e_{\mathrm{M}})}{2}.$$

For this reason, a nonzero $\rho_{r_m r_d}$ indicates that the two roles have different residual variances. The remaining covariance between the partners’ residuals is

$$\operatorname{Cov}(e_{\mathrm{F}},e_{\mathrm{M}}) = \operatorname{Var}(r_{\mathrm{m}})-\frac{1}{4}\operatorname{Var}(r_{\mathrm{d}}).$$

Reversing the coding

Instead of computing $X_{\mathrm{female}} - X_{\mathrm{male}}$, we can reverse the direction and compute $X_{\mathrm{male}} - X_{\mathrm{female}}$. This changes the direction of the differences, but not the substantive model.

cross_dsm_data_inverted <- dyadMLM::prepare_dyad_data(
  dyads_cross,
  dyad = coupleID,
  member = personID,
  role = gender,
  predictors = provided_support,
  # Request APIM columns too for comparison below.
  model_types = c("dsm", "apim"),
  keep_compositions = "female-male",
  dsm_role_order = c("male", "female")
)

dsm_model_inverted <- glmmTMB::glmmTMB(
  closeness ~
    .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc +
    .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff +
    .dy_dsm_role_contrast +
    .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +
    .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +
    us(1 + .dy_dsm_role_contrast | coupleID),
  dispformula = ~ 0,
  family = gaussian(),
  data = cross_dsm_data_inverted
)

female_minus_male <- glmmTMB::fixef(dsm_model)$cond
male_minus_female <- glmmTMB::fixef(dsm_model_inverted)$cond

knitr::kable(
  data.frame(
    `model term` = names(female_minus_male),
    `female - male` = unname(female_minus_male),
    `male - female` = unname(male_minus_female),
    check.names = FALSE
  ),
  digits = 3,
  align = c("l", "r", "r")
)

model term	female - male	male - female
(Intercept)	5.078	5.078
.dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc	1.466	1.466
.dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff	0.101	-0.101
.dy_dsm_role_contrast	1.014	-1.014
.dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc:.dy_dsm_role_contrast	0.719	-0.719
.dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast	0.924	0.924

The two models have identical fitted values and model fit:

• .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff reverses because the predictor difference reverses.

• .dy_dsm_role_contrast reverses because the represented outcome difference reverses.

• .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc:.dy_dsm_role_contrast reverses because only the outcome difference reverses.

• .dy_provided_support_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast remains unchanged because both differences reverse.

The intercept and .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc also remain unchanged. For the random effects, the variances of (Intercept) and .dy_dsm_role_contrast remain unchanged, whereas their covariance reverses sign.

Relationship to the APIM and DIM

For distinguishable dyads, the full DSM and an unconstrained distinguishable APIM are alternative parameterizations of the same fixed associations (Iida et al. 2018).

Let’s fit the equivalent distinguishable APIM:

apim_model <- glmmTMB::glmmTMB(
  closeness ~
    # Role-specific intercepts
    0 +
    .dy_is_female_x_male_female +
    .dy_is_female_x_male_male +

    # Role-specific actor effects
    .dy_is_female_x_male_female:.dy_provided_support_actor +
    .dy_is_female_x_male_male:.dy_provided_support_actor +

    # Role-specific partner effects
    .dy_is_female_x_male_female:.dy_provided_support_partner +
    .dy_is_female_x_male_male:.dy_provided_support_partner +

    # Role-specific Gaussian residual covariance structure
    us(0 +
         .dy_is_female_x_male_female +
         .dy_is_female_x_male_male
       | coupleID),
  dispformula = ~ 0,
  family = gaussian(),
  data = cross_dsm_data_inverted
)

The two DSM directions and the APIM have identical fit statistics:

data.frame(
  model = c("DSM: female - male", "DSM: male - female", "APIM"),
  AIC = round(c(AIC(dsm_model), AIC(dsm_model_inverted), AIC(apim_model)), 3),
  BIC = round(c(BIC(dsm_model), BIC(dsm_model_inverted), BIC(apim_model)), 3),
  logLik = round(c(
    as.numeric(logLik(dsm_model)),
    as.numeric(logLik(dsm_model_inverted)),
    as.numeric(logLik(apim_model))
  ), 3)
)
#>                model     AIC    BIC   logLik
#> 1 DSM: female - male 615.134 646.46 -298.567
#> 2 DSM: male - female 615.134 646.46 -298.567
#> 3               APIM 615.134 646.46 -298.567

Fixed-effect transformation

Let $b_{\mathrm{actor},\mathrm{female}}$ and $b_{\mathrm{actor},\mathrm{male}}$ denote the actor effects on the female and male outcomes. The corresponding partner effects are $b_{\mathrm{partner},\mathrm{female}}$ and $b_{\mathrm{partner},\mathrm{male}}$, and the APIM intercepts are $b_{0,\mathrm{female}}$ and $b_{0,\mathrm{male}}$. Fixed APIM coefficients use $b$ and write out their effect and outcome role. The numbered paths $a_{10}$ through $a_{22}$ retain the published DSM notation.

The slope transformation can be understood in two steps. First, for each outcome role $r \in \{\mathrm{female},\mathrm{male}\}$, form the actor-plus-partner and actor-minus-partner combinations:

$$\begin{aligned} b_{\mathrm{sum},r} &= b_{\mathrm{actor},r} + b_{\mathrm{partner},r}, \\ b_{\mathrm{difference},r} &= b_{\mathrm{actor},r} - b_{\mathrm{partner},r}. \end{aligned}$$

The DSM slopes then follow by combining the female- and male-outcome effects:

$$\begin{aligned} a_{11} &= \frac{b_{\mathrm{sum},\mathrm{female}} + b_{\mathrm{sum},\mathrm{male}}}{2}, & a_{21} &= b_{\mathrm{sum},\mathrm{female}} - b_{\mathrm{sum},\mathrm{male}}, \\ a_{12} &= \frac{b_{\mathrm{difference},\mathrm{female}} - b_{\mathrm{difference},\mathrm{male}}}{4}, & a_{22} &= \frac{b_{\mathrm{difference},\mathrm{female}} + b_{\mathrm{difference},\mathrm{male}}}{2}. \end{aligned}$$

The APIM predictors retain their original scale, whereas the DSM predictor level is grand-mean centered. Keeping the raw APIM predictors on their original scale preserves their reference values; the centering difference is handled explicitly in the intercept transformation. If $\mu_X$ is the grand mean subtracted from the DSM predictor level, the intercepts transform as

$$a_{10} = \frac{b_{0,\mathrm{female}} + b_{0,\mathrm{male}}}{2} + \mu_X a_{11}, \qquad a_{20} = b_{0,\mathrm{female}} - b_{0,\mathrm{male}} + \mu_X a_{21}.$$

For the reverse slope transformation, first recover the role-specific actor-plus-partner and actor-minus-partner combinations:

$$\begin{aligned} b_{\mathrm{sum},\mathrm{female}} &= a_{11} + \frac{a_{21}}{2}, & b_{\mathrm{sum},\mathrm{male}} &= a_{11} - \frac{a_{21}}{2}, \\ b_{\mathrm{difference},\mathrm{female}} &= a_{22} + 2a_{12}, & b_{\mathrm{difference},\mathrm{male}} &= a_{22} - 2a_{12}. \end{aligned}$$

Then, for each outcome role $r$,

$$b_{\mathrm{actor},r} = \frac{b_{\mathrm{sum},r} + b_{\mathrm{difference},r}}{2}, \qquad b_{\mathrm{partner},r} = \frac{b_{\mathrm{sum},r} - b_{\mathrm{difference},r}}{2}.$$

The intercepts transform back as

$$b_{0,\mathrm{female}} = a_{10} + \frac{a_{20}}{2} - \mu_X\left(a_{11} + \frac{a_{21}}{2}\right),$$

$$b_{0,\mathrm{male}} = a_{10} - \frac{a_{20}}{2} - \mu_X\left(a_{11} - \frac{a_{21}}{2}\right).$$

The following comparison applies the APIM-to-DSM transformation to all six fixed effects:

APIM-to-DSM fixed-effect transformation (centering constant = 4.909).

DSM path	From APIM transformation	From DSM model
a10	5.078	5.078
a11	1.466	1.466
a12	0.101	0.101
a20	1.014	1.014
a21	0.719	0.719
a22	0.924	0.924

Random-effect transformation

Let $u_{\mathrm{female}}$ and $u_{\mathrm{male}}$ be the APIM random effects for the female and male outcomes. The DSM outcome-level and outcome-difference residuals are the same random effects expressed in different coordinates:

$$\begin{pmatrix} r_{Y,\mathrm{mean}} \\ r_{Y,\mathrm{diff}} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1/2 & 1/2 \\ 1 & -1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} u_{\mathrm{female}} \\ u_{\mathrm{male}} \end{pmatrix}.$$

Applying this rotation to the APIM covariance matrix reproduces the DSM random intercept variance, intercept-slope covariance, and role-slope variance:

apim_vcov <- as.matrix(glmmTMB::VarCorr(apim_model)$cond$coupleID)
dsm_vcov <- as.matrix(glmmTMB::VarCorr(dsm_model)$cond$coupleID)

rotation <- rbind(
  outcome_level = c(0.5, 0.5),
  outcome_difference = c(1, -1)
)
apim_to_dsm_vcov <- rotation %*% apim_vcov %*% t(rotation)

data.frame(
  parameter = c(
    "Var(outcome mean)",
    "Cov(outcome mean, outcome diff)",
    "Var(outcome diff)"
  ),
  from_DSM = round(c(
    dsm_vcov[1, 1],
    dsm_vcov[1, 2],
    dsm_vcov[2, 2]
  ), 3),
  from_APIM_transformation = round(c(
    apim_to_dsm_vcov[1, 1],
    apim_to_dsm_vcov[1, 2],
    apim_to_dsm_vcov[2, 2]
  ), 3)
)
#>                         parameter from_DSM from_APIM_transformation
#> 1               Var(outcome mean)    0.508                    0.508
#> 2 Cov(outcome mean, outcome diff)    0.013                    0.013
#> 3               Var(outcome diff)    0.977                    0.977

For exchangeable dyads, the direction of a member difference is arbitrary. The directional intercept, both cross-paths, and the covariance between outcome level and outcome difference must then be zero. The remaining reduced, label-invariant DSM is algebraically the Gaussian Dyad-Individual Model (DIM). In dyadMLM, use model_types = "dim" for this exchangeable model and reserve model_types = "dsm" for distinguishable dyads.

Because the Gaussian DIM is the exchangeability-constrained version of the full DSM, exchangeability can also be tested by comparing these nested models. This is equivalent to the comparison shown in Testing distinguishability in the APIM vignette.

Intensive longitudinal DSM

The intensive longitudinal DSM extends the cross-sectional DSM using the same temporal decomposition and multilevel workflow shown for the intensive longitudinal DIM. The DSM retains the directional mean-and-difference parameterization described above. For more detail on centering decisions and mean-and-deviation interpretation, refer to the DIM vignette. For dynamic models and their cautions, see the dynamic ILD APIM example.

Brief example of ILD DSM:

ild_dsm_data <- dyadMLM::prepare_dyad_data(
  dyads_ild,
  dyad = coupleID,
  member = personID,
  role = gender,
  time = diaryday,
  predictors = provided_support,
  model_types = "dsm",
  keep_compositions = "female-male",
  dsm_role_order = c("female", "male")
)

print(ild_dsm_data, n = 4)
#> # dyadMLM data
#> # Rows: 3360 | Dyads: 120 | Intensive longitudinal: yes
#> # Structure: dyad = coupleID, member = personID, role = gender, time = diaryday
#> # DSM direction: female - male
#> #
#> # Dyad compositions:
#> # female_x_male distinguishable 120 dyads
#> #
#> # Added columns:
#> #   .dy_composition                  inferred dyad composition
#> #   .dy_composition_role             composition-specific member role
#> #   .dy_is_{comp-role}               composition-role indicator columns
#> #   .dy_{pred}_cwp                   within-person predictor: momentary
#> #                                    deviations from each person's usual level
#> #   .dy_{pred}_cbp                   between-person predictor: stable
#> #                                    differences from the average person's
#> #                                    usual level
#> #   .dy_dsm_role_contrast            DSM role contrast: +0.5 for the first
#> #                                    declared role and -0.5 for the second
#> #                                    declared role
#> #   .dy_{pred}_dyad_mean_gmc         dyad-mean predictor: dyad's average
#> #                                    predictor level, grand-mean centered
#> #   .dy_{pred}_within_dyad_diff      DSM signed predictor difference: first
#> #                                    declared role minus second declared role
#> #   .dy_{pred}_cwp_dyad_mean         within-person dyad-mean predictor: shared
#> #                                    momentary deviations in the dyad
#> #   .dy_{pred}_cwp_within_dyad_diff  DSM within-person signed predictor
#> #                                    difference: first declared role minus
#> #                                    second declared role
#> #   .dy_{pred}_cbp_dyad_mean         between-person dyad-mean predictor: dyad's
#> #                                    stable usual level, grand-mean centered
#> #   .dy_{pred}_cbp_within_dyad_diff  DSM between-person signed predictor
#> #                                    difference: first declared role minus
#> #                                    second declared role
#> #
#> # A tibble: 3,360 × 20
#>   personID coupleID diaryday gender dyad_composition closeness provided_support
#>      <int>    <int>    <int> <fct>  <fct>                <dbl>            <dbl>
#> 1        1        1        0 female female_x_male         4.40             4.93
#> 2        2        1        0 male   female_x_male         5.14             5.59
#> 3        1        1        1 female female_x_male         5.16             4.89
#> 4        2        1        1 male   female_x_male         5.70             5.18
#> # ℹ 3,356 more rows
#> # ℹ 13 more variables: .dy_composition <fct>, .dy_composition_role <fct>,
#> #   .dy_is_female_x_male_female <dbl>, .dy_is_female_x_male_male <dbl>,
#> #   .dy_provided_support_cwp <dbl>, .dy_provided_support_cbp <dbl>,
#> #   .dy_dsm_role_contrast <dbl>, .dy_provided_support_dyad_mean_gmc <dbl>,
#> #   .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean <dbl>,
#> #   .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean <dbl>, …

The example below estimates same-day associations between support and closeness and includes diaryday to allow separate linear trends for the outcome level and the female-minus-male outcome difference.

dsm_ILD <- glmmTMB::glmmTMB(
  closeness ~

    # Outcome-level intercept and linear time trend
    1 +
    diaryday +

    # Within-person predictor level -> outcome level
    .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean +

    # Within-person predictor difference -> outcome level
    .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff +

    # Between-person predictor level -> outcome level
    .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean +

    # Between-person predictor difference -> outcome level
    .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff +

    # Outcome-difference intercept and linear time trend
    .dy_dsm_role_contrast +
    diaryday:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +

    # Within-person predictor level and difference -> outcome difference
    .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +
    .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +

    # Between-person predictor level and difference -> outcome difference
    .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +
    .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +

    # Stable outcome-level and outcome-difference covariance
    us(1 + .dy_dsm_role_contrast | coupleID) +

    # Same-day outcome-level and outcome-difference covariance
    us(1 + .dy_dsm_role_contrast | coupleID:diaryday),
  dispformula = ~ 0,
  family = gaussian(),
  data = ild_dsm_data
)

summary(dsm_ILD)
#>  Family: gaussian  ( identity )
#> Formula:          
#> closeness ~ 1 + diaryday + .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean +  
#>     .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff + .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean +  
#>     .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff + .dy_dsm_role_contrast +  
#>     diaryday:.dy_dsm_role_contrast + .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +  
#>     .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +  
#>     .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +  
#>     .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast +  
#>     us(1 + .dy_dsm_role_contrast | coupleID) + us(1 + .dy_dsm_role_contrast |  
#>     coupleID:diaryday)
#> Dispersion:                 ~0
#> Data: ild_dsm_data
#> 
#>       AIC       BIC    logLik -2*log(L)  df.resid 
#>    8375.0    8485.1   -4169.5    8339.0      3342 
#> 
#> Random effects:
#> 
#> Conditional model:
#>  Groups            Name                  Variance Std.Dev. Corr 
#>  coupleID          (Intercept)           0.4812   0.6937        
#>                    .dy_dsm_role_contrast 0.9162   0.9572   0.02 
#>  coupleID:diaryday (Intercept)           0.3819   0.6180        
#>                    .dy_dsm_role_contrast 0.8551   0.9247   0.01 
#> Number of obs: 3360, groups:  coupleID, 120; coupleID:diaryday, 1680
#> 
#> Conditional model:
#>                                                                  Estimate
#> (Intercept)                                                      5.111583
#> diaryday                                                        -0.005238
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean                               0.472112
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff                        0.011992
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean                               1.465964
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff                        0.101067
#> .dy_dsm_role_contrast                                            0.864415
#> diaryday:.dy_dsm_role_contrast                                   0.023050
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast         0.212178
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast  0.196322
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast         0.719301
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast  0.923664
#>                                                                 Std. Error
#> (Intercept)                                                       0.071202
#> diaryday                                                          0.003745
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean                                0.027865
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff                         0.017685
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean                                0.092236
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff                         0.075770
#> .dy_dsm_role_contrast                                             0.099661
#> diaryday:.dy_dsm_role_contrast                                    0.005604
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast          0.041695
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast   0.026461
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast          0.127875
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast   0.105047
#>                                                                 z value
#> (Intercept)                                                       71.79
#> diaryday                                                          -1.40
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean                                16.94
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff                          0.68
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean                                15.89
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff                          1.33
#> .dy_dsm_role_contrast                                              8.67
#> diaryday:.dy_dsm_role_contrast                                     4.11
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast           5.09
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast    7.42
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast           5.63
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast    8.79
#>                                                                 Pr(>|z|)    
#> (Intercept)                                                      < 2e-16 ***
#> diaryday                                                           0.162    
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean                               < 2e-16 ***
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff                          0.498    
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean                               < 2e-16 ***
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff                          0.182    
#> .dy_dsm_role_contrast                                            < 2e-16 ***
#> diaryday:.dy_dsm_role_contrast                                  3.90e-05 ***
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast        3.60e-07 ***
#> .dy_provided_support_cwp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast 1.18e-13 ***
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_dyad_mean:.dy_dsm_role_contrast        1.85e-08 ***
#> .dy_provided_support_cbp_within_dyad_diff:.dy_dsm_role_contrast  < 2e-16 ***
#> ---
#> Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

The cross-sectional path interpretation therefore applies separately at the within-person and between-person levels. At each level, the predictor dyad mean and directional difference predict both the outcome level and the directional outcome difference.

---

Return to the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model vignette, see the Dyad-Individual Model vignette for a related model specification, or return to the online package overview.

References

Iida, Masumi, Gwendolyn Seidman, and Patrick E. Shrout. 2018. “Models of Interdependent Individuals Versus Dyadic Processes in Relationship Research.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35 (1): 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517725407.