↓ Skip to main content

Analyzing individual growth with clustered longitudinal data: A comparison between model-based and design-based multilevel approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Analyzing individual growth with clustered longitudinal data: A comparison between model-based and design-based multilevel approaches
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, June 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13428-017-0905-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hsien-Yuan Hsu, John J. H. Lin, Susan T. Skidmore

Abstract

To prevent biased estimates of intraindividual growth and interindividual variability when working with clustered longitudinal data (e.g., repeated measures nested within students; students nested within schools), individual dependency should be considered. A Monte Carlo study was conducted to examine to what extent two model-based approaches (multilevel latent growth curve model - MLGCM, and maximum model - MM) and one design-based approach (design-based latent growth curve model - D-LGCM) could produce unbiased and efficient parameter estimates of intraindividual growth and interindividual variability given clustered longitudinal data. The solutions of a single-level latent growth curve model (SLGCM) were also provided to demonstrate the consequences of ignoring individual dependency. Design factors considered in the present simulation study were as follows: number of clusters (NC = 10, 30, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 500) and cluster size (CS = 5, 10, and 20). According to our results, when intraindividual growth is of interest, researchers are free to implement MLGCM, MM, or D-LGCM. With regard to interindividual variability, MLGCM and MM were capable of producing accurate parameter estimates and SEs. However, when D-LGCM and SLGCM were applied, parameter estimates of interindividual variability were not comprised exclusively of the variability in individual (e.g., students) growth but instead were the combined variability of individual and cluster (e.g., school) growth, which cannot be interpreted. The take-home message is that D-LGCM does not qualify as an alternative approach to analyzing clustered longitudinal data if interindividual variability is of interest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 20%
Psychology 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Mathematics 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 July 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,636
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,669
of 330,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#30
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,053 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.