Talk:Actor–partner interdependence model

Avoid Overly Specific Details and Over-extended Examples

Some sections include very specific details that may give the impression of over-expansion. For instance, the article cites a single empirical study on married couples to illustrate actor and partner effects. While the example is valid, presenting one study in this way may inadvertently suggest that APIM is primarily used in marital research. It would help to clarify explicitly that this is only an illustrative example, or consider replacing it with (or adding) a more general example drawn from methodological textbooks or review articles that present the “classic” APIM use cases in a broader context.

Similarly, some numerical details appear more specific than necessary for a general encyclopedia article. For example, the statement that “.80 power requires approximately 91–92 dyads to detect actor effects and 249 dyads to detect partner effects” may be overly precise. Since required sample sizes vary substantially across designs and assumptions, summarizing the point more generally (e.g., that partner effects typically require larger samples than actor effects) would preserve accuracy while avoiding potentially misleading specificity. Kurikuriko (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, removed overly specific sample-size and rephrased as a general statement; also clarified the married-couples example. Luyi0161 (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The lead currently repeats the actor/partner effect definitions given in the “Conceptual overview”. Clairevinee7 (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, I trimmed the lead, thanks! Luyi0161 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)