1 / 16

160 likes | 327 Vues

3nd meeting: Multilevel modeling: introducing level 1 (individual) and level 2 (contextual) variables + interactions Subjects for today: Intra Class Correlation once more Including individual (level 1) variables Including contextual (level 2) variables (cross level) interactions.

Télécharger la présentation
## 3nd meeting:

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**3nd meeting:**• Multilevel modeling: introducing level 1 (individual) and level 2 (contextual) variables + interactions • Subjects for today: • Intra Class Correlation once more • Including individual (level 1) variables • Including contextual (level 2) variables • (cross level) interactions**Last meeting:**Intra Class Correlation: a fraction, it tells us what the relative share of level 2 variance is in the total variance: ICC = level 2 / level 2 + level 1 variance ICC is always between 0 (only level 1 variance, no clustering) and 1 (only level 2 variance) We test with a Chi-square test: difference in -2 loglikelihood between model with both level 1 and level 2 variance and model with level 2 variance set to zero. 2**Multilevel null model:**ICC = 24.849 / (24.849 + 81.238) = .23 3**Model with one level only:**Test whether ICC is significant or whether level 2 variance is significant different from zero we perform a Chi-square test: -2 loglikelihood from 1 level model - -2 loglikelihood from 2 level model: 3933.064 – 3800.776 = 132 with 1 df. Which is highly significant. This test is superior to Z-test in SPSS because the latter assumes normal distribution. Note: we test one sided because outcome is always zero or higher 4**Testing in MLwin with Chi-square (more info in document**about testing, see “statistical testing in Mlwin.pdf” Note that 0.0015654 must be divided by 2 voor level 2 variance testing Type cprob 10 1 and press [Enter] 5**So we have taken one step in the whole procedure: we tested**whether there is significant level 2 variance. In the example with schools we indeed have a level 2 variance. The next step is to add level 1 variables to the equation: Y = b0j + b1 * level 1 variable + eij + uoj Why? First, we might have hypotheses about level 1 variables, for instance we assume that white students perform best on a math test compared to other students. Second, we might expect that level 1 variables can explain level 2 variance. How is that? 6**Suppose So we have had one step in the whole procedure: we**tested whether there is level 2 variance. In the example with schools we indeed have a level 2 variance The next step is to add level 1 variables to the equation: Y = b0 + b1 * level 1 variable + eij + uoj Why? First, we might have hypotheses about level 1 variables, for instance we assume that white students perform better on a math test. Second, we might expect that level 1 variables can explain level 2 variance. How is that? 7**Well, suppose being white indeed increases the chances to**have a higher grade at a math test. Let us further assume that the fraction whites across schools varies. So assume school 1 has 80% whites and school 2 has 40% whites and we have a positive effect for being white on a math test. This must result in a lower average grade for school 2 compared to school 1, all other things being equal. This is called a compositional effect: the mere fact that whites perform better on a math test, school 1 (with 80% whites) will perform better than school 2 (with 40% whites). This eventually means that part of the difference between the school’s average is a result of the race composition. As a consequence introducing the individual level variable ‘race’ will REDUCE level 2 variance!! 8**Including the dummy ‘white’ reduces level 2 variance**Being white increases Grade by 4.7! 18.67 while it was 24.849in the null model Level 1 variance is also reduced (was 81.238) Note that -2 loglikelihood dropped to 3785.204 was 3800.776 9**Testing the effect of being white: 2 options:**One is traditional t-test: b / se = t with df = n – p (where n=sample, p=number of level 1 predictors: 4.717 / 1.163 = 3.946 with 519 – 1 = 518. Data manipulation Command interface and type: tprob 3.9466 1 Second option: take the -2 loglikelihood difference from model with and without level 1 predictor and use Chi-square test: 3800.776 - 3785.204 = 15.572 with df = 1 (in linear models it is equal to t-test because square root taken from 15.572 = 3.946) So type cprob 15.572 1 Take half of that because directional hypothesis! 10**Of course one will introduce more level 1 variables. First,**to test hypotheses, second to find a (partly) explanation for level 2 variance (we now use the full dataset: LOGSCHOOL.SAV: 415 schools, >8000 pupils. After we included all relevant level 1 predictors we move on to step number 2: introduce level 2 variables: here the % whites (variable name: race2_mean) 415 schools, t-test: 7.555/ .8 = 9!! With df = n2 – 1 – 1= 413 11**You see there is a difference between a compositional effect**from being white and the level 2 effect of %whites. The first effect is just due to individual behavior that taken together influences the school’s average on a math test. The second effect tells us that individuals perform better when a school has a high percentage of whites. Now let us finally include public versus private school (students in public schools do worse: estimate -3.133). 415 schools, df=415 – 1 - 2 12**Now we have done 3 things: 1) estimate ICC, 2) included**level 1 variables, 3) include level 2 variables. But now…. We might think that the effect of homework varies across schools: 13**Let us get back to the model with no random effect of**homework. So effect of homework is constant across schools: 14**15**Effect of homework set random across schools: There are two extra parameters: 1) the variance of the slope for Homework (not all with the same slope angle, even -! 2) a co-variance between slope and intercept (high on intercept, lower slope)**Ok, so we know that the effect of homework depends on what**school you are in: in some schools the effect is low, while in others it is high. WHY is that? One explanation: it is so because in private schools quality of staff is higher so making homework is less important. This would imply that the effect of homework is stronger when school is public: Effect of homework when school = private equals .914. When public the effect doubles = .914 + .917 = 1.831!! 16

More Related