Getting the Within Estimator of Cross-Level Interactions in Multilevel Models with Pooled Cross-Sections: Why Country Dummies (Sometimes) Do Not Do the Job

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Sociological Methodology Pub Date : 2018-11-15 DOI:10.1177/0081175018809150
Marco Giesselmann, Alexander W. Schmidt-Catran
{"title":"Getting the Within Estimator of Cross-Level Interactions in Multilevel Models with Pooled Cross-Sections: Why Country Dummies (Sometimes) Do Not Do the Job","authors":"Marco Giesselmann, Alexander W. Schmidt-Catran","doi":"10.1177/0081175018809150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multilevel models with persons nested in countries are increasingly popular in cross-country research. Recently, social scientists have started to analyze data with a three-level structure: persons at level 1, nested in year-specific country samples at level 2, nested in countries at level 3. By using a country fixed-effects estimator, or an alternative equivalent specification in a random-effects framework, this structure is increasingly used to estimate within-country effects in order to control for unobserved heterogeneity. For the main effects of country-level characteristics, such estimators have been shown to have desirable statistical properties. However, estimators of cross-level interactions in these models are not exhibiting these attractive properties: as algebraic transformations show, they are not independent of between-country variation and thus carry country-specific heterogeneity. Monte Carlo experiments consistently reveal the standard approaches to within estimation to provide biased estimates of cross-level interactions in the presence of an unobserved correlated moderator at the country level. To obtain an unbiased within-country estimator of a cross-level interaction, effect heterogeneity must be systematically controlled. By replicating a published analysis, we demonstrate the relevance of this extended country fixed-effects estimator in research practice. The intent of this article is to provide advice for multilevel practitioners, who will be increasingly confronted with the availability of pooled cross-sectional survey data.","PeriodicalId":48140,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0081175018809150","citationCount":"36","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175018809150","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

Abstract

Multilevel models with persons nested in countries are increasingly popular in cross-country research. Recently, social scientists have started to analyze data with a three-level structure: persons at level 1, nested in year-specific country samples at level 2, nested in countries at level 3. By using a country fixed-effects estimator, or an alternative equivalent specification in a random-effects framework, this structure is increasingly used to estimate within-country effects in order to control for unobserved heterogeneity. For the main effects of country-level characteristics, such estimators have been shown to have desirable statistical properties. However, estimators of cross-level interactions in these models are not exhibiting these attractive properties: as algebraic transformations show, they are not independent of between-country variation and thus carry country-specific heterogeneity. Monte Carlo experiments consistently reveal the standard approaches to within estimation to provide biased estimates of cross-level interactions in the presence of an unobserved correlated moderator at the country level. To obtain an unbiased within-country estimator of a cross-level interaction, effect heterogeneity must be systematically controlled. By replicating a published analysis, we demonstrate the relevance of this extended country fixed-effects estimator in research practice. The intent of this article is to provide advice for multilevel practitioners, who will be increasingly confronted with the availability of pooled cross-sectional survey data.
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
在汇集截面的多层模型中获得跨层相互作用的内估计量:为什么国家假人(有时)不能做这项工作
在跨国研究中,人嵌套的多层次模型越来越受欢迎。最近,社会科学家开始用三层结构来分析数据:第一层是人,第二层是嵌套在特定年份的国家样本中,第三层是嵌套在国家样本中。通过使用国家固定效应估计器,或随机效应框架中的替代等效规格,这种结构越来越多地用于估计国内效应,以控制未观察到的异质性。对于国家一级特征的主要影响,这种估计器已被证明具有理想的统计特性。然而,这些模型中跨水平相互作用的估计值并没有显示出这些吸引人的特性:正如代数变换所显示的那样,它们并非独立于国与国之间的差异,因此具有国家特有的异质性。蒙特卡罗实验一致地揭示了内部估计的标准方法,以便在国家一级存在未观察到的相关调节因子的情况下,对跨水平相互作用提供有偏差的估计。为了获得跨水平相互作用的无偏国内估计,必须系统地控制效应异质性。通过复制已发表的分析,我们证明了这种扩展的国家固定效应估计在研究实践中的相关性。本文的目的是为多层次的从业者提供建议,他们将越来越多地面对汇集的横断面调查数据的可用性。
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Sociological Methodology is a compendium of new and sometimes controversial advances in social science methodology. Contributions come from diverse areas and have something useful -- and often surprising -- to say about a wide range of topics ranging from legal and ethical issues surrounding data collection to the methodology of theory construction. In short, Sociological Methodology holds something of value -- and an interesting mix of lively controversy, too -- for nearly everyone who participates in the enterprise of sociological research.
期刊最新文献
Contextual Embeddings in Sociological Research: Expanding the Analysis of Sentiment and Social Dynamics Using Relative Distribution Methods to Study Economic Polarization across Categories and Contexts Can Human Reading Validate a Topic Model? Question-Order Effect in the Study of Satisfaction with Democracy: Lessons from Three Split-Ballot Experiments Comparing the Robustness of Simple Network Scale-Up Method Estimators
×
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