Use when analyzing and reporting results for a Developmental Psychology (APA) manuscript. The journal expects analyses that model developmental change correctly — growth-curve/multilevel/SEM, mediation/moderation, measurement invariance — with effect sizes and confidence intervals, JARS-compliant disclosure, and a clear confirmatory/exploratory split. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill devpsych-data-analysis --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Devpsych Data Analysis?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-devpsych-data-analysis)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: devpsych-data-analysis
description: Use when analyzing and reporting results for a Developmental Psychology (APA) manuscript. The journal expects analyses that model developmental change correctly — growth-curve/multilevel/SEM, mediation/moderation, measurement invariance — with effect sizes and confidence intervals, JARS-compliant disclosure, and a clear confirmatory/exploratory split. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
---
# Data Analysis (devpsych-data-analysis)
Developmental Psychology holds analyses to a developmental and a credibility standard at once: the model
must actually capture **change** (not just a cross-sectional snapshot), and reporting must meet **JARS** —
**effect sizes with confidence intervals**, full disclosure, and a clean **confirmatory vs. exploratory**
split. The most common fatal error is interpreting trajectories without first establishing that the
construct is measured the same way across ages.
## When to trigger
- Fitting growth-curve / multilevel / SEM models, or mediation/moderation of developmental effects
- A reviewer asked for measurement invariance, effect sizes, intervals, or attrition handling
- Reconciling preregistered developmental hypotheses with exploratory trajectory findings
- Preparing analysis scripts and a data dictionary for deposit
## Reporting norms Developmental Psychology expects
1. **Model change correctly.** Use the method the claim requires: **latent growth / multilevel models**
for trajectories, **SEM** for latent constructs, **cross-lagged / RI-CLPM** for reciprocal effects,
**mediation/moderation** for mechanism and moderated change. State time coding and centering.
2. **Establish measurement invariance first.** Test **configural → metric → scalar** across ages/waves
*before* interpreting mean change; report partial invariance honestly if full scalar fails.
3. **Effect sizes + uncertainty.** Report a standardized or unstandardized effect size **and confidence
intervals** for major results — slope estimates, interactions, indirect effects — not just stars.
4. **Handle missing data and attrition principledly.** Use **FIML or multiple imputation**; report the
attrition analysis (completers vs. dropouts) and the missingness assumption.
5. **JARS disclosure.** Report how sample size was determined, all exclusions and reasons, all conditions
and measures; keep confirmatory and exploratory analyses clearly separated.
6. **Reproducibility.** Provide analysis scripts and a data dictionary; the numbers should regenerate in
a fresh session (see `devpsych-open-science-and-transparency`).
## Worked micro-example (illustrative numbers)
A preregistered three-wave latent-growth study (ages 4, 6, 8; N = 300, 18% attrition) of effortful
control, testing maternal scaffolding as a driver of the growth slope.
```
Invariance (reported first):
configural fit good; metric and scalar invariance hold across waves
(ΔCFI < .01) → mean change is interpretable.
Confirmatory (preregistered):
Latent slope > 0: b = 0.42/year, 95% CI [0.31, 0.53] (within-person growth).
Scaffolding × time: b = 0.18, 95% CI [0.07, 0.29] (steeper growth with
higher wave-1 scaffolding).
Missing data: FIML; MAR; completers and dropouts did not differ on baseline
covariates (attrition analysis in supplement).
Exploratory (labeled):
RI-CLPM suggests child→parent effects in later waves; reported as
exploratory and flagged for confirmation in a future sample.
```
Why this passes scrutiny: invariance is reported *before* the growth claim; every developmental parameter
carries an effect size and a CI; missingness is modeled, not deleted; the reciprocal-effects finding is
honestly demoted to exploratory.
## Analysis-stage reviewer pushback and the venue fix
| Reviewer pushback | What it signals here | Developmental Psychology fix |
|-------------------|----------------------|------------------------------|
| "Is the construct the same at each age?" | invariance not tested | report configural→metric→scalar before interpreting change |
| "You deleted dropouts" | attrition bias | refit with FIML/MI; add the completers-vs-dropouts analysis |
| "ANOVA on age groups for a change claim" | wrong model for the claim | fit a growth/multilevel model on within-person data |
| "Stars, no effect size" | pre-reform reporting | report slope/interaction effect sizes with CIs |
| "Is this confirmatory?" | HARKing concern | point to preregistration; relabel post hoc trajectories exploratory |
## Calibration anchors
- A clean latent-growth slope with a tight CI, on an invariant measure, beats an age-group ANOVA with
stars — the venue's currency is credible *change*, not a snapshot contrast.
- Prefer estimation language ("effortful control grew 0.42/year, 95% CI [...]") to "significant effect of
age." Bare p-value sentences read as thin here.
- When attrition is non-trivial, state the missingness assumption and show the trajectory is robust to a
reasonable alternative (e.g., pattern-mixture sensitivity), rather than implying complete data.
## Anti-patterns
- Interpreting mean change without establishing measurement invariance
- Listwise deletion or ignoring differential attrition
- Using age-group ANOVA to support a within-person change claim
- p-values and stars with no effect sizes or confidence intervals
- HARKing exploratory trajectory shapes into confirmatory hypotheses
## Output format
```
【Model】growth / multilevel / SEM / cross-lagged / mediation-moderation — matches the change claim?
【Invariance】configural→metric→scalar tested before interpreting change? [Y/N]
【Main result】effect size + confidence interval + meaning
【Missing data】FIML/MI + attrition analysis reported? [Y/N]
【Confirmatory vs exploratory】clearly separated (JARS)? [Y/N]
【Reproducible】scripts + data dictionary + fresh-session check? [Y/N]
【Next】devpsych-tables-figures
```
## Supplementary resources
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — `lavaan`, Mplus, `lme4`/`nlme`, `semTools` invariance, `mice`, effect-size tooling
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — JARS statistical and disclosure requirements
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!