Matching Items (8)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Statistics
- Creators: West, Stephen G.
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
Coarsely grouped counts or frequencies are commonly used in the behavioral sciences. Grouped count and grouped frequency (GCGF) that are used as outcome variables often violate the assumptions of linear regression as well as models designed for categorical outcomes; there is no analytic model that is designed specifically to accommodate GCGF outcomes. The purpose of this dissertation was to compare the statistical performance of four regression models (linear regression, Poisson regression, ordinal logistic regression, and beta regression) that can be used when the outcome is a GCGF variable. A simulation study was used to determine the power, type I error, and confidence interval (CI) coverage rates for these models under different conditions. Mean structure, variance structure, effect size, continuous or binary predictor, and sample size were included in the factorial design. Mean structures reflected either a linear relationship or an exponential relationship between the predictor and the outcome. Variance structures reflected homoscedastic (as in linear regression), heteroscedastic (monotonically increasing) or heteroscedastic (increasing then decreasing) variance. Small to medium, large, and very large effect sizes were examined. Sample sizes were 100, 200, 500, and 1000. Results of the simulation study showed that ordinal logistic regression produced type I error, statistical power, and CI coverage rates that were consistently within acceptable limits. Linear regression produced type I error and statistical power that were within acceptable limits, but CI coverage was too low for several conditions important to the analysis of counts and frequencies. Poisson regression and beta regression displayed inflated type I error, low statistical power, and low CI coverage rates for nearly all conditions. All models produced unbiased estimates of the regression coefficient. Based on the statistical performance of the four models, ordinal logistic regression seems to be the preferred method for analyzing GCGF outcomes. Linear regression also performed well, but CI coverage was too low for conditions with an exponential mean structure and/or heteroscedastic variance. Some aspects of model prediction, such as model fit, were not assessed here; more research is necessary to determine which statistical model best captures the unique properties of GCGF outcomes.
ContributorsCoxe, Stefany (Author) / Aiken, Leona S. (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen G. (Thesis advisor) / Mackinnon, David P (Committee member) / Reiser, Mark R. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
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
Understanding how adherence affects outcomes is crucial when developing and assigning interventions. However, interventions are often evaluated by conducting randomized experiments and estimating intent-to-treat effects, which ignore actual treatment received. Dose-response effects can supplement intent-to-treat effects when participants are offered the full dose but many only receive a partial dose due to nonadherence. Using these data, we can estimate the magnitude of the treatment effect at different levels of adherence, which serve as a proxy for different levels of treatment. In this dissertation, I conducted Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate when linear dose-response effects can be accurately and precisely estimated in randomized experiments comparing a no-treatment control condition to a treatment condition with partial adherence. Specifically, I evaluated the performance of confounder adjustment and instrumental variable methods when their assumptions were met (Study 1) and when their assumptions were violated (Study 2). In Study 1, the confounder adjustment and instrumental variable methods provided unbiased estimates of the dose-response effect across sample sizes (200, 500, 2,000) and adherence distributions (uniform, right skewed, left skewed). The adherence distribution affected power for the instrumental variable method. In Study 2, the confounder adjustment method provided unbiased or minimally biased estimates of the dose-response effect under no or weak (but not moderate or strong) unobserved confounding. The instrumental variable method provided extremely biased estimates of the dose-response effect under violations of the exclusion restriction (no direct effect of treatment assignment on the outcome), though less severe violations of the exclusion restriction should be investigated.
ContributorsMazza, Gina L (Author) / Grimm, Kevin J. (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen G. (Thesis advisor) / Mackinnon, David P (Committee member) / Tein, Jenn-Yun (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Mediation analysis is used to investigate how an independent variable, X, is related to an outcome variable, Y, through a mediator variable, M (MacKinnon, 2008). If X represents a randomized intervention it is difficult to make a cause and effect inference regarding indirect effects without making no unmeasured confounding assumptions using the potential outcomes framework (Holland, 1988; MacKinnon, 2008; Robins & Greenland, 1992; VanderWeele, 2015), using longitudinal data to determine the temporal order of M and Y (MacKinnon, 2008), or both. The goals of this dissertation were to (1) define all indirect and direct effects in a three-wave longitudinal mediation model using the causal mediation formula (Pearl, 2012), (2) analytically compare traditional estimators (ANCOVA, difference score, and residualized change score) to the potential outcomes-defined indirect effects, and (3) use a Monte Carlo simulation to compare the performance of regression and potential outcomes-based methods for estimating longitudinal indirect effects and apply the methods to an empirical dataset. The results of the causal mediation formula revealed the potential outcomes definitions of indirect effects are equivalent to the product of coefficient estimators in a three-wave longitudinal mediation model with linear and additive relations. It was demonstrated with analytical comparisons that the ANCOVA, difference score, and residualized change score models’ estimates of two time-specific indirect effects differ as a function of the respective mediator-outcome relations at each time point. The traditional model that performed the best in terms of the evaluation criteria in the Monte Carlo study was the ANCOVA model and the potential outcomes model that performed the best in terms of the evaluation criteria was sequential G-estimation. Implications and future directions are discussed.
ContributorsValente, Matthew J (Author) / Mackinnon, David P (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen G. (Committee member) / Grimm, Keving (Committee member) / Chassin, Laurie (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
The comparison of between- versus within-person relations addresses a central issue in psychological research regarding whether group-level relations among variables generalize to individual group members. Between- and within-person effects may differ in magnitude as well as direction, and contextual multilevel models can accommodate this difference. Contextual multilevel models have been explicated mostly for cross-sectional data, but they can also be applied to longitudinal data where level-1 effects represent within-person relations and level-2 effects represent between-person relations. With longitudinal data, estimating the contextual effect allows direct evaluation of whether between-person and within-person effects differ. Furthermore, these models, unlike single-level models, permit individual differences by allowing within-person slopes to vary across individuals. This study examined the statistical performance of the contextual model with a random slope for longitudinal within-person fluctuation data.
A Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate data based on the contextual multilevel model, where sample size, effect size, and intraclass correlation (ICC) of the predictor variable were varied. The effects of simulation factors on parameter bias, parameter variability, and standard error accuracy were assessed. Parameter estimates were in general unbiased. Power to detect the slope variance and contextual effect was over 80% for most conditions, except some of the smaller sample size conditions. Type I error rates for the contextual effect were also high for some of the smaller sample size conditions. Conclusions and future directions are discussed.
A Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate data based on the contextual multilevel model, where sample size, effect size, and intraclass correlation (ICC) of the predictor variable were varied. The effects of simulation factors on parameter bias, parameter variability, and standard error accuracy were assessed. Parameter estimates were in general unbiased. Power to detect the slope variance and contextual effect was over 80% for most conditions, except some of the smaller sample size conditions. Type I error rates for the contextual effect were also high for some of the smaller sample size conditions. Conclusions and future directions are discussed.
ContributorsWurpts, Ingrid Carlson (Author) / Mackinnon, David P (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen G. (Committee member) / Grimm, Kevin J. (Committee member) / Suk, Hye Won (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
Time-to-event analysis or equivalently, survival analysis deals with two variables simultaneously: when (time information) an event occurs and whether an event occurrence is observed or not during the observation period (censoring information). In behavioral and social sciences, the event of interest usually does not lead to a terminal state such as death. Other outcomes after the event can be collected and thus, the survival variable can be considered as a predictor as well as an outcome in a study. One example of a case where the survival variable serves as a predictor as well as an outcome is a survival-mediator model. In a single survival-mediator model an independent variable, X predicts a survival variable, M which in turn, predicts a continuous outcome, Y. The survival-mediator model consists of two regression equations: X predicting M (M-regression), and M and X simultaneously predicting Y (Y-regression). To estimate the regression coefficients of the survival-mediator model, Cox regression is used for the M-regression. Ordinary least squares regression is used for the Y-regression using complete case analysis assuming censored data in M are missing completely at random so that the Y-regression is unbiased. In this dissertation research, different measures for the indirect effect were proposed and a simulation study was conducted to compare performance of different indirect effect test methods. Bias-corrected bootstrapping produced high Type I error rates as well as low parameter coverage rates in some conditions. In contrast, the Sobel test produced low Type I error rates as well as high parameter coverage rates in some conditions. The bootstrap of the natural indirect effect produced low Type I error and low statistical power when the censoring proportion was non-zero. Percentile bootstrapping, distribution of the product and the joint-significance test showed best performance. Statistical analysis of the survival-mediator model is discussed. Two indirect effect measures, the ab-product and the natural indirect effect are compared and discussed. Limitations and future directions of the simulation study are discussed. Last, interpretation of the survival-mediator model for a made-up empirical data set is provided to clarify the meaning of the quantities in the survival-mediator model.
ContributorsKim, Han Joe (Author) / Mackinnon, David P. (Thesis advisor) / Tein, Jenn-Yun (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen G. (Committee member) / Grimm, Kevin J. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
Analytics has transformed many of the core principles of sports journalism, forcing journalists to work smarter, harder and more creatively than ever before. Yet reporters today are uniquely prepared to navigate the constantly evolving world of journalism, as they now find themselves armed with a plethora of statistics and data that allow storytelling at depths never previously imagined. In interviews with those at the cutting edge of the industry, journalists from around the country imparted insight into how they work to blend new age thinking with time-tested methods of journalism. This thesis expands on those insights and examines the strategies employed to best attack questions of how to best integrate analytics into writing, what role analytics should play in interviews, how to find stories using analytics and others.
The process to answer these questions began by compiling a list of 166 journalists who could provide valuable insight into the current state of sports journalism. Targeted specifically were those journalists who were either currently or had spent extensive time as a beat reporter, as a crucial aspect of the study hinged on the exploration of the role of analytics in day-to-day coverage. Of those 166 journalists, 93 made themselves available through either Twitter direct message or email. Once contacted, 47 of those journalists responded, eventually leading to 27 phone interviews and 7 email interviews.
Each interview began with the journalist establishing a baseline for what they thought the role of analytics should be in the coverage of their respective sports. From there, the conversation often took a linear turn as journalists talked about the experiences in their career that led them to that conclusion, what moments had shifted their overall opinions of analytics, their best approaches for utilizing analytics in both articles and interviews, their favorite and least favorite analytical measures, the gaps that remain in analytics, and the future of the industry as a whole.
Each interview was transcribed, and a number of compelling themes emerged. The many different themes were organized into three different groups, past, present and future, where they were further expanded on to best display the many concepts illustrated in this thesis. Among the themes explored include how journalists use coaches and players to validate statistics, what strategies work best when including analytics in conversations with athletes, how to find story ideas through analytics and the issues plaguing the analytics community. Once themes had been identified, the percentage of journalists who had indicated agreement with the themes were calculated. Thus, themes investigated were represented statistically as well as by a quote from a journalist addressing the idea.
Across 34 interviews with some of the country’s most established and well-respected voices, many of the pressing issues facing analytics in sports journalism today were explored, including the melding of analytical and narrative writing, how best to use analytics in question asking, and the “holy grail” of analytical data. Across interviews, a host of interesting strategies and ideas emerged as journalists examined how the industry reached its current point, what practices are currently most effective, and where the industry is headed. The perspective gained from this thesis gives insight into many of the lesser-discussed elements of journalism, imparting a deeper understanding of the challenges that lay ahead for sports journalism through an examination for how far the industry has come. While analytics and their usage in sports journalism remains a difficult concept to fully encapsulate, this thesis hopefully gives a better look at their complex and ever-evolving relationship.
The process to answer these questions began by compiling a list of 166 journalists who could provide valuable insight into the current state of sports journalism. Targeted specifically were those journalists who were either currently or had spent extensive time as a beat reporter, as a crucial aspect of the study hinged on the exploration of the role of analytics in day-to-day coverage. Of those 166 journalists, 93 made themselves available through either Twitter direct message or email. Once contacted, 47 of those journalists responded, eventually leading to 27 phone interviews and 7 email interviews.
Each interview began with the journalist establishing a baseline for what they thought the role of analytics should be in the coverage of their respective sports. From there, the conversation often took a linear turn as journalists talked about the experiences in their career that led them to that conclusion, what moments had shifted their overall opinions of analytics, their best approaches for utilizing analytics in both articles and interviews, their favorite and least favorite analytical measures, the gaps that remain in analytics, and the future of the industry as a whole.
Each interview was transcribed, and a number of compelling themes emerged. The many different themes were organized into three different groups, past, present and future, where they were further expanded on to best display the many concepts illustrated in this thesis. Among the themes explored include how journalists use coaches and players to validate statistics, what strategies work best when including analytics in conversations with athletes, how to find story ideas through analytics and the issues plaguing the analytics community. Once themes had been identified, the percentage of journalists who had indicated agreement with the themes were calculated. Thus, themes investigated were represented statistically as well as by a quote from a journalist addressing the idea.
Across 34 interviews with some of the country’s most established and well-respected voices, many of the pressing issues facing analytics in sports journalism today were explored, including the melding of analytical and narrative writing, how best to use analytics in question asking, and the “holy grail” of analytical data. Across interviews, a host of interesting strategies and ideas emerged as journalists examined how the industry reached its current point, what practices are currently most effective, and where the industry is headed. The perspective gained from this thesis gives insight into many of the lesser-discussed elements of journalism, imparting a deeper understanding of the challenges that lay ahead for sports journalism through an examination for how far the industry has come. While analytics and their usage in sports journalism remains a difficult concept to fully encapsulate, this thesis hopefully gives a better look at their complex and ever-evolving relationship.
ContributorsRosenfarb, Jacob Alexander (Author) / Boivin, Paola (Thesis director) / Reed, Sada (Committee member) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Comm (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05