Table 3.

Estimated Variance Components for Different LST Models Applied to the Health Data (N = 360)

	CCO	UCO	TCO	OSpe	Rel
			NM
Item 1, time 1	.56	—	.56	.03 a	.60
Item 2, time 1	.27	—	.27	.17 a	.44
Item 3, time 1	.47	—	.47	.40 a	.88
Item 1, time 2	.74	—	.74	.02 a	.76
Item 2, time 2	.27	—	.27	.12 a	.39
Item 3, time 2	.52	—	.52	.34 a	.86
Item 1, time 3	.61	—	.61	.05	.66
Item 2, time 3	.19	—	.19	.20	.39
Item 3, time 3	.38	—	.38	.26	.64
			CU
Item 1, time 1	.44	—	—	.08	.52
Item 2, time 1	.28	—	—	.18	.46
Item 3, time 1	.52	—	—	.30	.82
Item 1, time 2	.67	—	—	.03 a	.69
Item 2, time 2	.30	—	—	.10 a	.40
Item 3, time 2	.60	—	—	.23 a	.83
Item 1, time 3	.46	—	—	.11	.57
Item 2, time 3	.19	—	—	.18	.37
Item 3, time 3	.40	—	—	.26	.66
			OM
Item 1, time 1	.44	.16	.59	.08	.68
Item 2, time 1	.28	.15	.43	.18	.61
Item 3, time 1	.52	.04 b	.55	.30	.86
Item 1, time 2	.67	.07	.74	.03 a	.77
Item 2, time 2	.30	.12	.42	.10 a	.52
Item 3, time 2	.60	.00 b	.60	.23 a	.83
Item 1, time 3	.46	.20	.66	.11	.77
Item 2, time 3	.19	.14	.34	.18	.52
Item 3, time 3	.40	.04 b	.44	.26	.70
			M − 1 c
Item 1, time 1	.58	—	.58	.08	.66
Item 2, time 1	.23 d	.25 d	.48	.16	.64
Item 3, time 1	.42 d	.17 d	.59	.26	.86
Item 1, time 2	.74	—	.74	.05 a	.79
Item 2, time 2	.24 d	.16 d	.39	.13 a	.52
Item 3, time 2	.47 d	.07 d	.54	.28 a	.82
Item 1, time 3	.63	—	.63	.09	.72
Item 2, time 3	.16 d	.17 d	.33	.17	.5
Item 3, time 3	.33 d	.13 d	.45	.24	.69
			IT
Item 1, time 1	—	—	.58	.07	.65
Item 2, time 1	—	—	.45	.17	.62
Item 3, time 1	—	—	.56	.28	.83
Item 1, time 2	—	—	.73	.06	.79
Item 2, time 2	—	—	.42	.12	.54
Item 3, time 2	—	—	.56	.27	.83
Item 1, time 3	—	—	.63	.08	.72
Item 2, time 3	—	—	.32	.18	.50
Item 3, time 3	—	—	.44	.23	.68

Note. NM = model with no method factors; CU = correlated uniqueness approach; OM = M orthogonal method factor approach; M − 1 = M − 1 correlated method factor approach; IT = indicator specific trait factor approach. CCO = common consistency; UCO = unique consistency; TCO = total consistency; OSpe = occasion-specificity. The items were taken from the SF-36 scale (Ware, Snow, Kosinski, & Gandek, 1993). Item 1: “In general, would you say your health is… (1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = good, 4 = fair, 5 = poor)”; Item 2: “I am as healthy as anybody I know”; Item 3: “My health is excellent”. Items 2 and 3 were scored on the following 5-point scale: 1 = definitely true, 2 = mostly true, 3 = don’t know, 4 = mostly false, 5 = definitely false.

^athe variance of the corresponding state residual factor was non-significant (p ≥ .08).

^bthe variance of the corresponding method factor was non-significant (p > .82).

^cItem 1 served as reference method in this model.

^dto be interpreted relative to the reference method. Dashes indicate that a coefficient is not applicable. TCO and OSpe do not always add up to the reliability coefficient due to rounding errors.