Linear mixed models and latent growth curve models for group comparison studies contaminated by outliers.

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological methods Pub Date : 2024-02-15 DOI:10.1037/met0000643
Fabio Mason, Eva Cantoni, Paolo Ghisletta
{"title":"Linear mixed models and latent growth curve models for group comparison studies contaminated by outliers.","authors":"Fabio Mason, Eva Cantoni, Paolo Ghisletta","doi":"10.1037/met0000643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The linear mixed model (LMM) and latent growth model (LGM) are frequently applied to within-subject two-group comparison studies to investigate group differences in the time effect, supposedly due to differential group treatments. Yet, research about LMM and LGM in the presence of outliers (defined as observations with a very low probability of occurrence if assumed from a given distribution) is scarce. Moreover, when such research exists, it focuses on estimation properties (bias and efficiency), neglecting inferential characteristics (e.g., power and type-I error). We study power and type-I error rates of Wald-type and bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs), as well as coverage and length of CIs and mean absolute error (MAE) of estimates, associated with classical and robust estimations of LMM and LGM, applied to a within-subject two-group comparison design. We conduct a Monte Carlo simulation experiment to compare CIs and MAEs under different conditions: data (a) without contamination, (b) contaminated by within-subject outliers, (c) contaminated by between-subject outliers, and (d) both contaminated by within- and between-subject outliers. Results show that without contamination, methods perform similarly, except CIs based on S, a robust LMM estimator, which are slightly less close to nominal values in their coverage. However, in the presence of both within- and between-subject outliers, CIs based on robust estimators, especially S, performed better than those of classical methods. In particular, the percentile CI with the wild bootstrap applied to the robust LMM estimators outperformed all other methods, especially with between-subject outliers, when we found the classical Wald-type CI based on the t statistic with Satterthwaite approximation for LMM to be highly misleading. We provide R code to compute all methods presented here. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000643","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The linear mixed model (LMM) and latent growth model (LGM) are frequently applied to within-subject two-group comparison studies to investigate group differences in the time effect, supposedly due to differential group treatments. Yet, research about LMM and LGM in the presence of outliers (defined as observations with a very low probability of occurrence if assumed from a given distribution) is scarce. Moreover, when such research exists, it focuses on estimation properties (bias and efficiency), neglecting inferential characteristics (e.g., power and type-I error). We study power and type-I error rates of Wald-type and bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs), as well as coverage and length of CIs and mean absolute error (MAE) of estimates, associated with classical and robust estimations of LMM and LGM, applied to a within-subject two-group comparison design. We conduct a Monte Carlo simulation experiment to compare CIs and MAEs under different conditions: data (a) without contamination, (b) contaminated by within-subject outliers, (c) contaminated by between-subject outliers, and (d) both contaminated by within- and between-subject outliers. Results show that without contamination, methods perform similarly, except CIs based on S, a robust LMM estimator, which are slightly less close to nominal values in their coverage. However, in the presence of both within- and between-subject outliers, CIs based on robust estimators, especially S, performed better than those of classical methods. In particular, the percentile CI with the wild bootstrap applied to the robust LMM estimators outperformed all other methods, especially with between-subject outliers, when we found the classical Wald-type CI based on the t statistic with Satterthwaite approximation for LMM to be highly misleading. We provide R code to compute all methods presented here. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
线性混合模型和潜在增长曲线模型,用于受异常值污染的分组比较研究。
线性混合模型(LMM)和潜在增长模型(LGM)经常被应用于受试者内两组比较研究,以调查时间效应的组间差异,这可能是由于不同的组间处理造成的。然而,关于 LMM 和 LGM 在存在异常值(定义为假定为给定分布时出现概率极低的观测值)的情况下的研究却很少。此外,即使有此类研究,也主要集中在估计特性(偏差和效率)上,而忽略了推论特性(如功率和类型一误差)。我们研究了 Wald 型和 bootstrap 置信区间 (CI) 的功率和 I 型误差率,以及 CI 的覆盖范围和长度和估计值的平均绝对误差 (MAE),这些都与 LMM 和 LGM 的经典和稳健估计有关,并应用于受试者内两组比较设计。我们进行了蒙特卡罗模拟实验,以比较不同条件下的 CI 和 MAE:数据 (a) 无污染,(b) 受研究对象内异常值污染,(c) 受研究对象间异常值污染,(d) 同时受研究对象内和研究对象间异常值污染。结果表明,在没有污染的情况下,除了基于 S(一种稳健的 LMM 估计器)的 CI 值在覆盖范围上略微偏离名义值之外,其他方法的表现类似。然而,在存在受试者内和受试者间异常值的情况下,基于稳健估计器(尤其是 S)的 CI 比传统方法的 CI 表现更好。特别是,当我们发现基于 t 统计量和 Satterthwaite 近似 LMM 的经典 Wald 型 CI 极易误导时,应用于稳健 LMM 估计器的野生自举法百分位数 CI 的表现优于所有其他方法,尤其是在存在研究对象间异常值的情况下。我们提供了 R 代码来计算本文介绍的所有方法。(PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
期刊最新文献
A guided tutorial on linear mixed-effects models for the analysis of accuracies and response times in experiments with fully crossed design. Bayes factors for logistic (mixed-effect) models. Better power by design: Permuted-subblock randomization boosts power in repeated-measures experiments. Building a simpler moderated nonlinear factor analysis model with Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation. Definition and identification of causal ratio effects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1