Multilevel modeling for repeated measures: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:42, 28 November 2012

Revision as of 22:10, 5 January 2013

Line 1:

{{lead missing|date=April 2012}}

One application of [[multilevel modeling]] (MLM) is the analysis of repeated measures data. '''Multilevel modeling for repeated measures''' data is most often discussed in the context of modeling change over time (i.e. growth curve modeling for longitudinal designs); however, it may also be used for repeated measures data in which time is not a factor.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hoffman|first=Lesa|coauthors=Rovine, Michael J.|title=Multilevel models for the experimental psychologist: Foundations and illustrative examples|journal=Behavior Research Methods|year=2007|volume=39|issue=1|pages=101–117|doi=10.3758/BF03192848}}</ref>

In multilevel modeling, an overall change function (e.g. linear, quadratic, cubic etc.) is fitted to the whole sample and, just as in multilevel modeling for clustered data, the [[slope]] and [[intercept]] may be allowed to vary. For example, in a study looking at income growth with age, individuals might be assumed to show linear improvement over time. However, the exact intercept and slope could be allowed to vary across individuals (i.e. defined as random coefficients).

Line 35:

==Multilevel modeling versus other statistical techniques for repeated measures==

===Multilevel Modeling versus RM-ANOVA===

Repeated measures analysis of variance ([[RM-ANOVA]]) has been traditionally used for analysis of [[repeated measures]] designs. However, violation of the assumptions of RM-ANOVA can be problematic. Multilevel modeling (MLM) is commonly used for repeated measures designs because it presents an alternative approach to analyzing this type of data with three main advantages over RM-ANOVA:<ref name=quene>{{cite journal|last=Quené|first=Hugo|coauthors=van den Bergh, Huub|title=On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: a tutorial|journal=Speech Communication|year=2004|volume=43|issue=1-2|pages=103–121|doi=10.1016/j.specom.2004.02.004}}</ref>