Suchergebnisse

A multilevel problem concerns a population with a hierarchical structure. A sample from such a population can be described as a multistage sample. First, a sample of higher level units is drawn (e.g. schools or organizations), and next a sample of the sub‐units from the available units (e.g. pupils in schools or employees in organizations). In such samples, the individual observations are in general not completely independent. Multilevel analysis software accounts for this dependence and in recent years these programs have been widely accepted. Two problems that occur in the practice of multilevel modeling will be discussed. The first problem is the choice of the sample sizes at the different levels. What are sufficient sample sizes for accurate estimation? The second problem is the normality assumption of the level‐2 error distribution. When one wants to conduct tests of significance, the errors need to be normally distributed. What happens when this is not the case? In this paper, simulation studies are used to answer both questions. With respect to the first question, the results show that a small sample size at level two (meaning a sample of 50 or less) leads to biased estimates of the second‐level standard errors. The answer to the second question is that only the standard errors for the random effects at the second level are highly inaccurate if the distributional assumptions concerning the level‐2 errors are not fulfilled. Robust standard errors turn out to be more reliable than the asymptotic standard errors based on maximum likelihood.

Multilevel structural equation modeling (multilevel SEM) has become an established method to analyze multilevel multivariate data. The first useful estimation method was the pseudobalanced method. This method is approximate because it assumes that all groups have the same size, and ignores unbalance when it exists. In addition, full information maximum likelihood (ML) estimation is now available, which is often combined with robust chi‐squares and standard errors to accommodate unmodeled heterogeneity (MLR). In addition, diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) methods have become available as estimation methods. This article compares the pseudobalanced estimation method, ML(R), and two DWLS methods by simulating a multilevel factor model with unbalanced data. The simulations included different sample sizes at the individual and group levels and different intraclass correlation (ICC). The within‐group part of the model posed no problems. In the between part of the model, the different ICC sizes had no effect. There is a clear interaction effect between number of groups and estimation method. ML reaches unbiasedness fastest, then the two DWLS methods, then MLR, and then the pseudobalanced method (which needs more than 200 groups). We conclude that both ML(R) and DWLS are genuine improvements on the pseudobalanced approximation. With small sample sizes, the robust methods are not recommended.