Latent growth mixture models as latent variable multigroup factor models: Comment on McNeish et al. (2023)

McNeish et al. argue for the general use of covariance pattern growth mixture models because these models do not involve the assumption of random effects, demonstrate high rates of convergence, and are most likely to identify the correct number of latent subgroups. We argue that the covariance pattern growth mixture model is a single random intercept model. It and other models considered in their article are special cases of a general model involving slope and intercept factors. We argue growth mixture models are multigroup invariance hypotheses based on unknown subgroups. Psychometric models in which trajectories are modeled using slope factor loadings which vary by latent subgroup are often conceptually preferable. Convergence rates for mixture models can be substantially improved by using a variance component start value taken from analyses with one fewer class and by specifying multifactor models in orthogonal form. No single latent growth model is appropriate across all research contexts and, instead, the most appropriate latent mixture model must be "right-sized" to the data under consideration. Reanalysis of a real-world longitudinal data set of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology reveals a three-group model involving exponential decline, further suggesting that the four-group "cat's cradle" pattern frequently reported is artefactual. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).