The use of latent curve models (LCMs) has increased almost exponentially during the last decade. Oftentimes, researchers regard LCM as a “new” method to analyze change with little attention paid to the fact that the technique was originally introduced as an “alternative to standard repeated measures ANOVA and first-order auto-regressive methods” (Meredith & Tisak, 1990, p. 107). In the first part of the paper, this close relationship is reviewed, and it is demonstrated how “traditional” methods, such as the repeated measures ANOVA, and MANOVA, can be formulated as LCMs. Given that latent curve modeling is essentially a large-sample technique, compared to “traditional” finite-sample approaches, the second part of the paper addresses the question to what degree the more flexible LCMs can actually replace some of the older tests by means of a Monte-Carlo simulation. In addition, a structural equation modeling alternative to Mauchly’s (1940) test of sphericity is explored. Although “traditional” methods may be expressed as special cases of more general LCMs, we found the equivalence holds only asymptotically. For practical purposes, however, no approach always outperformed the other alternatives in terms of power and type I error, so the best method to be used depends on the situation. We provide detailed recommendations of when to use which method.
Probability of Type I Error and Power of Some Parametric Test: Comparative Approach