Claims

The alternative models proposed by Sorjonen et al. relied on specifications that raised model-validity concerns or did not fully capture the extended REM's temporal structure

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r? · q1
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2028: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

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.

q1 i? In the authors' view, the models proposed by Sorjonen et al. relied on specifications that raised concerns about model validity or did not fully capture the temporal structure central to the extended REM. → Fernando Núñez-Regueiro 2025

Evidence

Fernando Núñez-Regueiro 2025

Fernando Núñez-Regueiro, Herbert W Marsh, Reinhard Pekrun, Oliver Lüdtke, Jiesi Guo. (2025). The Reciprocal Effects Model is Robust to Alternative Modeling Specifications: A Response to Sorjonen et al., 2025. Educational Psychology Review, 37 (3), pp.79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10059-7

q1 · i? · associational · r?

This is the authors' methodological critique of the alternative models proposed in the Sorjonen et al. (2025) commentary, stated in the article's introduction of the dispute. The article offers this as an interpretive assessment rather than a tested result, noting the specifications "raised some concerns about model validity".

"the models they proposed relied on specifications that, iour view, raised some concerns about model validity or did not fully capture the temporal structure central to Marsh et al.'s (2024) extended reciprocal effects model (REM)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id sorjonen-models-specification-validity-concerns
title The alternative models proposed by Sorjonen et al. relied on specifications that raised model-validity concerns or did not fully capture the extended REM's temporal structure
description The alternative models proposed by Sorjonen et al.
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2025
recheck_by 2028
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — fernando-núñez-regueiro-2025

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.