Please Scroll down for Article Multivariate Behavioral Research the Impacts of Ignoring a Crossed Factor in Analyzing Cross-classified Data

Cross-classified random-effects models (CCREMs) are used for modeling nonhierarchical multilevel data. Misspecifying CCREMs as hierarchical linear models (i.e., treating the cross-classified data as strictly hierarchical by ignoring one of the crossed factors) causes biases in the variance component estimates, which in turn, results in biased estimation in the standard errors of the regression coefficients. Analytical studies were conducted to provide closed-form expressions for the biases. With balanced design data structure, ignoring a crossed factor causes overestimation of the variance components of adjacent levels and underestimation of the variance component of the remaining crossed factor. Moreover, ignoring a crossed factor at the kth level causes underestimation of the standard error of the regression coefficient of the predictor associated with the ignored factor and overestimation of the standard error of the regression coefficient of the predictor at the (k−1)th level. Simulation studies were also conducted to examine the effect of different structures of cross-classification on the biases. In general, the direction and magnitude of the biases depend on the level of the ignored crossed factor, the level with which the predictor is associated at, the magnitude of the variance component of the ignored crossed factor, the variance components of the predictors, the sample sizes, and the structure of cross-classification. The results were further illustrated using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort data.

[1]  H. Goldstein,et al.  Efficient Analysis of Mixed Hierarchical and Cross-Classified Random Structures Using a Multilevel Model , 1994 .

[2]  A. Boomsma,et al.  Robustness Studies in Covariance Structure Modeling , 1998 .

[3]  Nan M. Laird,et al.  The Effect of Covariance Structure on Variance Estimation in Balanced Growth-Curve Models with Random Parameters , 1989 .

[4]  Jarl K. Kampen,et al.  Asymptotic Effect of Misspecification in the Random Part of the Multilevel Model , 2004 .

[5]  Nigel W. Bond,et al.  A multilevel cross‐classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings , 2003 .

[6]  Andrew J. Martin,et al.  A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom motivation and climate: Potential benefits of male teachers for boys? , 2008 .

[7]  David G Steel,et al.  Ignoring a Level in a Multilevel Model: Evidence from UK Census Data , 2001 .

[8]  Stephen W. Raudenbush,et al.  A Crossed Random Effects Model for Unbalanced Data With Applications in Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Research , 1993 .

[9]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[10]  S Natasha Beretvas,et al.  The Impact of Inappropriate Modeling of Cross-Classified Data Structures , 2006, Multivariate behavioral research.

[11]  Risto Lehtonen,et al.  Multilevel Statistical Models , 2005 .

[12]  Bieke De Fraine,et al.  The Consequence of Ignoring a Level of Nesting in Multilevel Analysis: A Comment , 2005, Multivariate behavioral research.

[13]  Harvey Goldstein,et al.  Multiple membership multiple classification (MMMC) models , 2001 .

[14]  J. R. Hough,et al.  Business segment performance redux: a multilevel approach , 2006 .

[15]  Mirjam Moerbeek,et al.  The Consequence of Ignoring a Level of Nesting in Multilevel Analysis , 2004, Multivariate behavioral research.

[16]  Jan de Leeuw,et al.  Introducing Multilevel Modeling , 1998 .

[17]  Samuel B. Green,et al.  The Impact of Misspecifying the Within-Subject Covariance Structure in Multiwave Longitudinal Multilevel Models: A Monte Carlo Study , 2007 .

[18]  H. Goldstein Multilevel mixed linear model analysis using iterative generalized least squares , 1986 .

[19]  Antony Fielding,et al.  1 TEACHING GROUPS AS FOCI FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE IN COST EFFECTUVENESS OF GCE ADVANCED LEVEL PROVISION : SOME PRACTICAL METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS , 2000 .

[20]  Antony Fielding,et al.  Teaching Groups as Foci for Evaluating Performance in Cost-Effectiveness of GCE Advanced Level Provision: Some Practical Methodological Innovations1 , 2002 .

[21]  Patrick Onghena,et al.  The Effects of Ignoring a Level in Multilevel Analysis , 2005 .