4.4 Article

Two Filtering Methods of Forecasting Linear and Nonlinear Dynamics of Intensive Longitudinal Data

期刊

PSYCHOMETRIKA
卷 87, 期 2, 页码 477-505

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11336-021-09827-5

关键词

dynamical systems; forecasting; time series; Kalman filtering; intensive longitudinal data; drug and alcohol use

资金

  1. NIDA [DA032582]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the increasing prevalence of intensive longitudinal data (ILD), there is a need for more methods to analyze and make predictions from this type of data in behavioral settings. This study establishes a general framework for modeling ILD and applies it to the prediction of daily drug and alcohol use, comparing the performance of two forecasting methods - Kalman prediction and ensemble prediction.
With the advent of new data collection technologies, intensive longitudinal data (ILD) are collected more frequently than ever. Along with the increased prevalence of ILD, more methods are being developed to analyze these data. However, relatively few methods have yet been applied for making long- or even short-term predictions from ILD in behavioral settings. Applications of forecasting methods to behavioral ILD are still scant. We first establish a general framework for modeling ILD and then extend that frame to two previously existing forecasting methods: these methods are Kalman prediction and ensemble prediction. After implementing Kalman and ensemble forecasts in free and open-source software, we apply these methods to daily drug and alcohol use data. In doing so, we create a simple, but nonlinear dynamical system model of daily drug and alcohol use and illustrate important differences between the forecasting methods. We further compare the Kalman and ensemble forecasting methods to several simpler forecasts of daily drug and alcohol use. Ensemble forecasts may be more appropriate than Kalman forecasts for nonlinear dynamical systems models, but further forecasting evaluation methods must be put into practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据