Matching Items (7)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Statistics
Description
Missing data are common in psychology research and can lead to bias and reduced power if not properly handled. Multiple imputation is a state-of-the-art missing data method recommended by methodologists. Multiple imputation methods can generally be divided into two broad categories: joint model (JM) imputation and fully conditional specification (FCS) imputation. JM draws missing values simultaneously for all incomplete variables using a multivariate distribution (e.g., multivariate normal). FCS, on the other hand, imputes variables one at a time, drawing missing values from a series of univariate distributions. In the single-level context, these two approaches have been shown to be equivalent with multivariate normal data. However, less is known about the similarities and differences of these two approaches with multilevel data, and the methodological literature provides no insight into the situations under which the approaches would produce identical results. This document examined five multilevel multiple imputation approaches (three JM methods and two FCS methods) that have been proposed in the literature. An analytic section shows that only two of the methods (one JM method and one FCS method) used imputation models equivalent to a two-level joint population model that contained random intercepts and different associations across levels. The other three methods employed imputation models that differed from the population model primarily in their ability to preserve distinct level-1 and level-2 covariances. I verified the analytic work with computer simulations, and the simulation results also showed that imputation models that failed to preserve level-specific covariances produced biased estimates. The studies also highlighted conditions that exacerbated the amount of bias produced (e.g., bias was greater for conditions with small cluster sizes). The analytic work and simulations lead to a number of practical recommendations for researchers.
ContributorsMistler, Stephen (Author) / Enders, Craig K. (Thesis advisor) / Aiken, Leona (Committee member) / Levy, Roy (Committee member) / West, Stephen G. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Although the issue of factorial invariance has received increasing attention in the literature, the focus is typically on differences in factor structure across groups that are directly observed, such as those denoted by sex or ethnicity. While establishing factorial invariance across observed groups is a requisite step in making meaningful cross-group comparisons, failure to attend to possible sources of latent class heterogeneity in the form of class-based differences in factor structure has the potential to compromise conclusions with respect to observed groups and may result in misguided attempts at instrument development and theory refinement. The present studies examined the sensitivity of two widely used confirmatory factor analytic model fit indices, the chi-square test of model fit and RMSEA, to latent class differences in factor structure. Two primary questions were addressed. The first of these concerned the impact of latent class differences in factor loadings with respect to model fit in a single sample reflecting a mixture of classes. The second question concerned the impact of latent class differences in configural structure on tests of factorial invariance across observed groups. The results suggest that both indices are highly insensitive to class-based differences in factor loadings. Across sample size conditions, models with medium (0.2) sized loading differences were rejected by the chi-square test of model fit at rates just slightly higher than the nominal .05 rate of rejection that would be expected under a true null hypothesis. While rates of rejection increased somewhat when the magnitude of loading difference increased, even the largest sample size with equal class representation and the most extreme violations of loading invariance only had rejection rates of approximately 60%. RMSEA was also insensitive to class-based differences in factor loadings, with mean values across conditions suggesting a degree of fit that would generally be regarded as exceptionally good in practice. In contrast, both indices were sensitive to class-based differences in configural structure in the context of a multiple group analysis in which each observed group was a mixture of classes. However, preliminary evidence suggests that this sensitivity may contingent on the form of the cross-group model misspecification.
ContributorsBlackwell, Kimberly Carol (Author) / Millsap, Roger E (Thesis advisor) / Aiken, Leona S. (Committee member) / Enders, Craig K. (Committee member) / Mackinnon, David P (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Designing studies that use latent growth modeling to investigate change over time calls for optimal approaches for conducting power analysis for a priori determination of required sample size. This investigation (1) studied the impacts of variations in specified parameters, design features, and model misspecification in simulation-based power analyses and (2) compared power estimates across three common power analysis techniques: the Monte Carlo method; the Satorra-Saris method; and the method developed by MacCallum, Browne, and Cai (MBC). Choice of sample size, effect size, and slope variance parameters markedly influenced power estimates; however, level-1 error variance and number of repeated measures (3 vs. 6) when study length was held constant had little impact on resulting power. Under some conditions, having a moderate versus small effect size or using a sample size of 800 versus 200 increased power by approximately .40, and a slope variance of 10 versus 20 increased power by up to .24. Decreasing error variance from 100 to 50, however, increased power by no more than .09 and increasing measurement occasions from 3 to 6 increased power by no more than .04. Misspecification in level-1 error structure had little influence on power, whereas misspecifying the form of the growth model as linear rather than quadratic dramatically reduced power for detecting differences in slopes. Additionally, power estimates based on the Monte Carlo and Satorra-Saris techniques never differed by more than .03, even with small sample sizes, whereas power estimates for the MBC technique appeared quite discrepant from the other two techniques. Results suggest the choice between using the Satorra-Saris or Monte Carlo technique in a priori power analyses for slope differences in latent growth models is a matter of preference, although features such as missing data can only be considered within the Monte Carlo approach. Further, researchers conducting power analyses for slope differences in latent growth models should pay greatest attention to estimating slope difference, slope variance, and sample size. Arguments are also made for examining model-implied covariance matrices based on estimated parameters and graphic depictions of slope variance to help ensure parameter estimates are reasonable in a priori power analysis.
ContributorsVan Vleet, Bethany Lucía (Author) / Thompson, Marilyn S. (Thesis advisor) / Green, Samuel B. (Committee member) / Enders, Craig K. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Researchers are often interested in estimating interactions in multilevel models, but many researchers assume that the same procedures and interpretations for interactions in single-level models apply to multilevel models. However, estimating interactions in multilevel models is much more complex than in single-level models. Because uncentered (RAS) or grand mean centered (CGM) level-1 predictors in two-level models contain two sources of variability (i.e., within-cluster variability and between-cluster variability), interactions involving RAS or CGM level-1 predictors also contain more than one source of variability. In this Master’s thesis, I use simulations to demonstrate that ignoring the four sources of variability in a total level-1 interaction effect can lead to erroneous conclusions. I explain how to parse a total level-1 interaction effect into four specific interaction effects, derive equivalencies between CGM and centering within context (CWC) for this model, and describe how the interpretations of the fixed effects change under CGM and CWC. Finally, I provide an empirical example using diary data collected from working adults with chronic pain.
ContributorsMazza, Gina L (Author) / Enders, Craig K. (Thesis advisor) / Aiken, Leona S. (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen G. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Several studies on cheerleading as a sport can be found in the literature; however, there is no research done on the value added to the experience at a university, to an athletic department or at a particular sport. It has been the feeling that collegiate and professional cheerleaders are not given the appropriate recognition nor credit for the amount of work they do. This contribution is sometimes in question as it depends on the school and the sports teams. The benefits are believed to vary based on the university or professional teams. This research investigated how collegiate cheerleaders and dancers add value to the university sport experience. We interviewed key personnel at the university and conference level and polled spectators at sporting events such as basketball and football. We found that the university administration and athletic personnel see the ASU Spirit Squad as value added but spectators had a totally different perspective. The university acknowledges the added value of the Spirit Squad and its necessity. Spectators attend ASU sporting events to support the university and for the entertainment. They enjoy watching the ASU Spirit Squad perform but would continue to attend ASU sporting events even if cheerleaders and dancers were not there.
ContributorsThomas, Jessica Ann (Author) / Wilson, Jeffrey (Thesis director) / Garner, Deana (Committee member) / Department of Supply Chain Management (Contributor) / Department of Marketing (Contributor) / School of Community Resources and Development (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
Accurate data analysis and interpretation of results may be influenced by many potential factors. The factors of interest in the current work are the chosen analysis model(s), the presence of missing data, and the type(s) of data collected. If analysis models are used which a) do not accurately capture the structure of relationships in the data such as clustered/hierarchical data, b) do not allow or control for missing values present in the data, or c) do not accurately compensate for different data types such as categorical data, then the assumptions associated with the model have not been met and the results of the analysis may be inaccurate. In the presence of clustered
ested data, hierarchical linear modeling or multilevel modeling (MLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) has the ability to predict outcomes for each level of analysis and across multiple levels (accounting for relationships between levels) providing a significant advantage over single-level analyses. When multilevel data contain missingness, multilevel multiple imputation (MLMI) techniques may be used to model both the missingness and the clustered nature of the data. With categorical multilevel data with missingness, categorical MLMI must be used. Two such routines for MLMI with continuous and categorical data were explored with missing at random (MAR) data: a formal Bayesian imputation and analysis routine in JAGS (R/JAGS) and a common MLM procedure of imputation via Bayesian estimation in BLImP with frequentist analysis of the multilevel model in Mplus (BLImP/Mplus). Manipulated variables included interclass correlations, number of clusters, and the rate of missingness. Results showed that with continuous data, R/JAGS returned more accurate parameter estimates than BLImP/Mplus for almost all parameters of interest across levels of the manipulated variables. Both R/JAGS and BLImP/Mplus encountered convergence issues and returned inaccurate parameter estimates when imputing and analyzing dichotomous data. Follow-up studies showed that JAGS and BLImP returned similar imputed datasets but the choice of analysis software for MLM impacted the recovery of accurate parameter estimates. Implications of these findings and recommendations for further research will be discussed.
ested data, hierarchical linear modeling or multilevel modeling (MLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) has the ability to predict outcomes for each level of analysis and across multiple levels (accounting for relationships between levels) providing a significant advantage over single-level analyses. When multilevel data contain missingness, multilevel multiple imputation (MLMI) techniques may be used to model both the missingness and the clustered nature of the data. With categorical multilevel data with missingness, categorical MLMI must be used. Two such routines for MLMI with continuous and categorical data were explored with missing at random (MAR) data: a formal Bayesian imputation and analysis routine in JAGS (R/JAGS) and a common MLM procedure of imputation via Bayesian estimation in BLImP with frequentist analysis of the multilevel model in Mplus (BLImP/Mplus). Manipulated variables included interclass correlations, number of clusters, and the rate of missingness. Results showed that with continuous data, R/JAGS returned more accurate parameter estimates than BLImP/Mplus for almost all parameters of interest across levels of the manipulated variables. Both R/JAGS and BLImP/Mplus encountered convergence issues and returned inaccurate parameter estimates when imputing and analyzing dichotomous data. Follow-up studies showed that JAGS and BLImP returned similar imputed datasets but the choice of analysis software for MLM impacted the recovery of accurate parameter estimates. Implications of these findings and recommendations for further research will be discussed.
ContributorsKunze, Katie L (Author) / Levy, Roy (Thesis advisor) / Enders, Craig K. (Committee member) / Thompson, Marilyn S (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
Currently, there is a clear gap in the missing data literature for three-level models.
To date, the literature has only focused on the theoretical and algorithmic work
required to implement three-level imputation using the joint model (JM) method of
imputation, leaving relatively no work done on fully conditional specication (FCS)
method. Moreover, the literature lacks any methodological evaluation of three-level
imputation. Thus, this thesis serves two purposes: (1) to develop an algorithm in
order to implement FCS in the context of a three-level model and (2) to evaluate
both imputation methods. The simulation investigated a random intercept model
under both 20% and 40% missing data rates. The ndings of this thesis suggest
that the estimates for both JM and FCS were largely unbiased, gave good coverage,
and produced similar results. The sole exception for both methods was the slope for
the level-3 variable, which was modestly biased. The bias exhibited by the methods
could be due to the small number of clusters used. This nding suggests that future
research ought to investigate and establish clear recommendations for the number of
clusters required by these imputation methods. To conclude, this thesis serves as a
preliminary start in tackling a much larger issue and gap in the current missing data
literature.
To date, the literature has only focused on the theoretical and algorithmic work
required to implement three-level imputation using the joint model (JM) method of
imputation, leaving relatively no work done on fully conditional specication (FCS)
method. Moreover, the literature lacks any methodological evaluation of three-level
imputation. Thus, this thesis serves two purposes: (1) to develop an algorithm in
order to implement FCS in the context of a three-level model and (2) to evaluate
both imputation methods. The simulation investigated a random intercept model
under both 20% and 40% missing data rates. The ndings of this thesis suggest
that the estimates for both JM and FCS were largely unbiased, gave good coverage,
and produced similar results. The sole exception for both methods was the slope for
the level-3 variable, which was modestly biased. The bias exhibited by the methods
could be due to the small number of clusters used. This nding suggests that future
research ought to investigate and establish clear recommendations for the number of
clusters required by these imputation methods. To conclude, this thesis serves as a
preliminary start in tackling a much larger issue and gap in the current missing data
literature.
ContributorsKeller, Brian Tinnell (Author) / Enders, Craig K. (Thesis advisor) / Grimm, Kevin J. (Committee member) / Levy, Roy (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015