skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice

Quality & quantity, 2019-03, Vol.53 (2), p.1051-1074 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

The Author(s) 2018 ;COPYRIGHT 2019 Springer ;Quality & Quantity is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved. © 2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. ;ISSN: 0033-5177 ;ISSN: 1573-7845 ;EISSN: 1573-7845 ;DOI: 10.1007/s11135-018-0802-x

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice
  • Author: Bell, Andrew ; Fairbrother, Malcolm ; Jones, Kelvyn
  • Subjects: Ability ; Bias ; Capabilities ; Choices ; Confusion ; Data analysis ; Decision making ; fixed effects ; Imports ; Laws, regulations, etc ; Mathematical models ; Methodology of the Social Sciences ; multilevel models ; Random effects ; Simulation ; Social Sciences ; Studies
  • Is Part Of: Quality & quantity, 2019-03, Vol.53 (2), p.1051-1074
  • Description: This paper assesses the options available to researchers analysing multilevel (including longitudinal) data, with the aim of supporting good methodological decision-making. Given the confusion in the literature about the key properties of fixed and random effects (FE and RE) models, we present these models’ capabilities and limitations. We also discuss the within-between RE model, sometimes misleadingly labelled a ‘hybrid’ model, showing that it is the most general of the three, with all the strengths of the other two. As such, and because it allows for important extensions—notably random slopes—we argue it should be used (as a starting point at least) in all multilevel analyses. We develop the argument through simulations, evaluating how these models cope with some likely mis-specifications. These simulations reveal that (1) failing to include random slopes can generate anti-conservative standard errors, and (2) assuming random intercepts are Normally distributed, when they are not, introduces only modest biases. These results strengthen the case for the use of, and need for, these models.
  • Publisher: Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 0033-5177
    ISSN: 1573-7845
    EISSN: 1573-7845
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-018-0802-x
  • Source: ProQuest One Psychology
    Springer Nature OA/Free Journals
    ProQuest Central
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait