Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Statistics
Description
Methods to test hypotheses of mediated effects in the pretest-posttest control group design are understudied in the behavioral sciences (MacKinnon, 2008). Because many studies aim to answer questions about mediating processes in the pretest-posttest control group design, there is a need to determine which model is most appropriate to test hypotheses about mediating processes and what happens to estimates of the mediated effect when model assumptions are violated in this design. The goal of this project was to outline estimator characteristics of four longitudinal mediation models and the cross-sectional mediation model. Models were compared on type 1 error rates, statistical power, accuracy of confidence interval coverage, and bias of parameter estimates. Four traditional longitudinal models and the cross-sectional model were assessed. The four longitudinal models were analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using pretest scores as a covariate, path analysis, difference scores, and residualized change scores. A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted to evaluate the different models across a wide range of sample sizes and effect sizes. All models performed well in terms of type 1 error rates and the ANCOVA and path analysis models performed best in terms of bias and empirical power. The difference score, residualized change score, and cross-sectional models all performed well given certain conditions held about the pretest measures. These conditions and future directions are discussed.
ContributorsValente, Matthew John (Author) / MacKinnon, David (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen (Committee member) / Aiken, Leona (Committee member) / Enders, Craig (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
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
The purpose of this study was to examine under which conditions "good" data characteristics can compensate for "poor" characteristics in Latent Class Analysis (LCA), as well as to set forth guidelines regarding the minimum sample size and ideal number and quality of indicators. In particular, we studied to which extent including a larger number of high quality indicators can compensate for a small sample size in LCA. The results suggest that in general, larger sample size, more indicators, higher quality of indicators, and a larger covariate effect correspond to more converged and proper replications, as well as fewer boundary estimates and less parameter bias. Based on the results, it is not recommended to use LCA with sample sizes lower than N = 100, and to use many high quality indicators and at least one strong covariate when using sample sizes less than N = 500.
ContributorsWurpts, Ingrid Carlson (Author) / Geiser, Christian (Thesis advisor) / Aiken, Leona (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012