| Title |
Fitting multilevel models in complex survey data with design weights: Recommendations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-9-49 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam C Carle |
| Abstract |
Multilevel models (MLM) offer complex survey data analysts a unique approach to understanding individual and contextual determinants of public health. However, little summarized guidance exists with regard to fitting MLM in complex survey data with design weights. Simulation work suggests that analysts should scale design weights using two methods and fit the MLM using unweighted and scaled-weighted data. This article examines the performance of scaled-weighted and unweighted analyses across a variety of MLM and software programs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 352 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Belgium | 2 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 331 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 83 | 24% |
| Researcher | 59 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 24 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 7% |
| Other | 64 | 18% |
| Unknown | 61 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 98 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 17% |
| Psychology | 23 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 23 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 4% |
| Other | 54 | 15% |
| Unknown | 81 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2022.
All research outputs
#5,149,962
of 25,109,675 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#800
of 2,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,278
of 117,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,109,675 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 117,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.