Explained variance of CVT emotion models falls below 15% within latent profiles versus a median above 30% in grouping analyses, beyond what variance restriction explains¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Latent-profile CVT models show markedly lower explained variance than full-sample and demographic-group models, with the decline for anxiety reaching nearly two-thirds. → Dirk Tempelaar · Alexandra Niculescu 2026
Evidence¶
Dirk Tempelaar · Alexandra Niculescu 2026¶
Dirk Tempelaar · Alexandra Niculescu. (2026). Testing the Relative Universalism of Psychological Theories: A Person-Centered Analysis of Control-Value Theory. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10155-2
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Comparison of standardized SEM results across full-sample, multigroup, and latent-profile models. The article reports "a median R 2 exceeding 30%" for grouping analyses versus below 15% for latent profiles, and states variance restriction does not fully explain the reduction; the discussion adds anxiety's decline is nearly two-thirds.
"The group -ing analyses yield a median R 2 exceeding 30%, whereas the latent profile models fall below 15%. Although variance restriction inherent in latent profile analysis may partly account for this reduction, it does not fully explain the pronounced weakening of the role of Academic Control."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- In the HghLBO profile, boredom and enjoyment lose nearly all predictive power for persistence, though they predict persistence in full-sample and multigroup analyses — related
- CVT's control–anxiety relation breaks down across latent emotional profiles, with unstandardized coefficients ranging from −0.292 to +0.024 including non-significant positive effects — related
- CVT structural relations are largely stable across gender and prior-education groupings, supporting relative universalism under variable-centered tests — related
- Nonlinear CVT extensions show cubic control terms with negative coefficients for negative emotions in the full sample, but the coefficient's sign differs across latent profiles — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
explained-variance-declines-within-profiles |
title |
Explained variance of CVT emotion models falls below 15% within latent profiles versus a median above 30% in grouping analyses, beyond what variance restriction explains |
description |
Explained variance of CVT emotion models falls below 15% within latent profiles versus a median above 30% in grouping analyses, beyond what variance restriction explains |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — dirk-tempelaar-alexandra-niculescu-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.