What question did this study set out to answer?

To synthesize longitudinal studies utilizing the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model across various disciplines and assess methodological practices.

April 17, 2026

Beyond the Individual: A 25-year Systematic Review of the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model in Longitudinal Dyadic Research Across Disciplines and Contexts

Key Points

To synthesize longitudinal studies utilizing the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model across various disciplines and assess methodological practices.
Reviewed 73 longitudinal studies using APIM published between 2008 and 2025
Analyzed methodological practices, analytical strategies, and population diversity
Included studies with at least 70 dyads and longitudinal designs exceeding one year
Extracted data on study characteristics and analysis techniques
Fivefold increase in APIM publications post-2016, with 37.0% from psychology and 31.5% from family science
58.9% of studies from North America, 86.3% focused on couple dyads, and 75.3% used secondary data
Inconsistencies in methodological transparency, with only 17.8% reporting power analyses
Only 16.4% of studies employed multi-method assessments, limiting insight into interpersonal influence
Most studies were hypothesis-driven but acknowledged limitations, including reliance on self-reports

Abstract

The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) has become a foundational framework for analyzing dyadic data, but systematic reviews synthesizing how longitudinal APIM has been applied across disciplines and populations are limited. This systematic review examined 73 longitudinal APIM studies published between 2008 and 2025, analyzing methodological practices, analytical strategies, and population diversity. Studies were included if they used APIM as the primary framework, reported both actor and partner effects, included a minimum of 70 dyads, and employed longitudinal designs exceeding one year. Data were extracted on study characteristics, sample demographics, APIM variants, statistical approaches, and methodological transparency indicators. Results revealed a fivefold increase in publications after 2016, with applications spanning psychology (37.0%), family science (31.5%), and gerontology (12.3%). However, substantial gaps emerged in three areas. First, geographic and population concentration was evident: 58.9% of studies originated from North America, 86.3% examined couple dyads, and 75.3% utilized secondary data from established panels. Second, methodological transparency showed inconsistency: only 17.8% reported power analyses, 24.7% did not report missing data strategies, and 35.6% failed to document model constraints. Third, universal self-report reliance with minimal multi-method assessment (16.4%) limits distinguishing genuine interpersonal influence from shared method variance. Despite these gaps, nearly all studies were hypothesis-driven, typically articulating a priori expectations regarding actor and partner pathways, and researchers increasingly acknowledged limitations regarding power (37.0%) and self-report reliance (65.8%). Future advances require integrating a priori power analysis using dyadic-specific tools, employing multi-method designs, diversifying populations beyond Western heterosexual couples, and enhancing reporting transparency through preregistration and comprehensive model specification.

Bookmark

Cite This Study

Yazd et al. (Wed,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e1cf1b5cdc762e9d85809a https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075261443593

Bookmark