The comparison of between- versus within-person relations addresses a central issue in psychological research regarding whether group-level relations among variables generalize to individual group members. Between- and within-person effects may differ in magnitude as well as direction, and contextual multilevel models can accommodate this difference. Contextual multilevel models have been explicated mostly for cross-sectional data, but they can also be applied to longitudinal data where level-1 effects represent within-person relations and level-2 effects represent between-person relations. With longitudinal data, estimating the contextual effect allows direct evaluation of whether between-person and within-person effects differ. Furthermore, these models, unlike single-level models, permit individual differences by allowing within-person slopes to vary across individuals. This study examined the statistical performance of the contextual model with a random slope for longitudinal within-person fluctuation data.

A Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate data based on the contextual multilevel model, where sample size, effect size, and intraclass correlation (ICC) of the predictor variable were varied. The effects of simulation factors on parameter bias, parameter variability, and standard error accuracy were assessed. Parameter estimates were in general unbiased. Power to detect the slope variance and contextual effect was over 80% for most conditions, except some of the smaller sample size conditions. Type I error rates for the contextual effect were also high for some of the smaller sample size conditions. Conclusions and future directions are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to examine under which conditions "good" data characteristics can compensate for "poor" characteristics in Latent Class Analysis (LCA), as well as to set forth guidelines regarding the minimum sample size and ideal number and quality of indicators. In particular, we studied to which extent including a larger number of high quality indicators can compensate for a small sample size in LCA. The results suggest that in general, larger sample size, more indicators, higher quality of indicators, and a larger covariate effect correspond to more converged and proper replications, as well as fewer boundary estimates and less parameter bias. Based on the results, it is not recommended to use LCA with sample sizes lower than N = 100, and to use many high quality indicators and at least one strong covariate when using sample sizes less than N = 500.