Article	N	W	I	Model	Construct
Steyer, Majcen, Schwenkmezger, Buchner, 1989	64	2	2	NM	anxiety
Steyer, Schwenkmezger & Auer, 1990	179	2	2	CU	anxiety
Steyer & Schmitt, 1990	152	3	4	CU, IT	attitudes toward guest workers
Kirschbaum et al., 1990	48	2	2	NM	salivary cortisol
	54	3	2	NM	salivary cortisol
Ormel & Schaufeli, 1991a	226	3	2	M − 1	psychological distress, locus of control, & self-esteem
	389	5	2	NM	psychological distress, locus of control, & self-esteem
Schmitt & Steyer, 1993	380	2	2	OM	social desirability
	215	3	2	OM	social desirability
Steyer & Schmitt, 1994	502	4	2	M − 1	well being
Eid, Notz, Steyer, Schwenkmezger, 1994	496	4	2	OM	mood level & mood reactivity
Deinzer et al., 1995	502	4	2	OM	12 personality dimensions
Preville et al, 1996	46	3	5	NM	cortisol reactivity
Dumenci & Windle, 1996	805	4	4	OM	depressive symptoms
Dumenci & Windle, 1998	1061	4	3	OM	depressed mood
Windle & Dumenci, 1998	536	4	4	OM	depressed mood
Eid & Hoffmann, 1998	370	4	2	IT	interest in topic of radioactivity
Eid, Schneider & Schwenkmezger, 1999	176	3	2	M − 1	self-perceived mood deviation
Steyer, Schmitt & Eid, 1999	503	2	2	IT	awakeness vs. sleepiness mood state
Eid & Diener, 1999	180	3	2	IT	affect
Schmitt & Maes, 2000	1065	2	2	OM	depressive symptoms
Schmitt, 2000	206	3	2	OM	mother-daughter attachment & family cohesion
J. Tisak & M.S. Tisak, 2000	116	3	4	OM	affective commitment
	117	3	4	OM	continuance commitment
Schmukle, Egloff, & Burns, 2002	292	3	2	IT	positive affect & negative affect
Mohiyeddini, Hautzinger, & Bauer, 2002	188	2	2	OM	depression
Hagemann et al., 2002	59	4	2	NM	resting EEG asymmetry
Blickle, 2003	209	2	4	IT	intraorganizational influence attempts
Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004	119	3	2	IT	flux, pulse, & spin
Davey et al., 2004	737	5	3	CU, M − 1	depressive symptoms
Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2004	395	3	3	M − 1	test anxiety
Yasuda et al, 2004	235	3	5	CU	affect
Eid & Diener, 2004	249	3	2	IT	subjective well-being
Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, & Arbach, 2005	1258	2	2	M − 1	justice sensitivity
Hagemann et al., 2005	59	3	2	NM	resting EEG asymmetry
Schmukle & Egloff, 2005	65	2	2	IT	implicit & explicit
Khoo et al., 2006	188	3	4	OM	conscientiousness
Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 2006	1991	3	9	modified OM	brand loyalty & deal proneness
Dormann et al., 2006	157	4	2	CU	job satisfaction
Hellhammer et al., 2007	239	6	2	NM	cortisol rise after wakening
Bonnefon, Vautier, & Eid, 2007	484	2	6	IT	contrapositive reasoning
Courvoisier et al., 2007a	501	4	2	M − 1	mood
Booth, Granger, & Shirtcliff, 2008	724	4	2	NM	cortisol levels
Hermes et al., 2009	38	2	2	NM	cerebral blood flow
Olatunji & Cole, 2009a	787	8	2	TSO	anxiety
Ziegler, Ehrlenspiel, & Brand, 2009	156	2	4	CU	competitive anxiety
Boll et al., 2010	709	2	2	OM	differential parental treatment
Courvoisier et al., 2010a	307	6	2	IT	mood
Danner et al., 2010	173	2	2	OM	intelligence, decision making, learning
Weijters et al., 2010	1506	2	3	CU	response style
Courvoisier et al., 2011a	15,282	4	2	IT	psychosocial health
Kertes & van Dulmen, 2011	164	3	2	NM	cortisol
Lorber & O’Leary, 2011a	396	4	2	OM, IT b	aggression
Luhmann, Schimmack, & Eid, 2011a	37,041	16	2	M − 1	affective well-being
Ploubidis & Frangou, 2011	3445	2	30	NM	psychological distress
Stalder et al., 2011	64	3	2	CM	hair cortisol
Eid, Courvoisier, & Lischetzke, in pressa	305	6	2	IT	mood

Median	249	3	2
Mean	1349.298c	3.474	3.140
Mode	--	3	2
Minimum	38	2	2
Maximum	37,041	16	30
SD	5227.155	2.097	3.847

Note. W = number of waves; I = number of indicators per wave; CU = correlated uniqueness approach; OM = M orthogonal method factor approach; M − 1 = M − 1 correlated method factor approach; IT = indicator-specific trait factor approach; TSO = trait state occasion model without method factors; CM = M correlated method factor approach.

^aDenotes studies which tested LST models with an autoregressive component.

^bNot explicitly interpreted as an IT model by the authors of this paper.

^cThe mean sample size without including the Courvoisier et al. (2011) and Luhmann et al. (2011) study is N = 447.