分析交叉分类数据的竞争方法的比较:随机效应模型,普通最小二乘法,或具有聚类鲁棒标准误差的固定效应

Young Ri Lee, J. Pustejovsky
{"title":"分析交叉分类数据的竞争方法的比较:随机效应模型,普通最小二乘法,或具有聚类鲁棒标准误差的固定效应","authors":"Young Ri Lee, J. Pustejovsky","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/f9mr2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cross-classified random effects modeling (CCREM) is a common approach for analyzing cross-classified data in education. However, when the focus of a study is on the regression coefficients at level one rather than on the random effects, ordinary least squares regression with cluster robust variance estimators (OLS-CRVE) or fixed effects regression with CRVE (FE-CRVE) could be appropriate approaches. These alternative methods may be advantageous because they rely on weaker assumptions than what is required by CCREM. We conducted a Monte Carlo Simulation study to compare the performance of CCREM, OLS-CRVE, and FE-CRVE in models with crossed random effects, including conditions where homoscedasticity assumptions and exogeneity assumptions held and conditions where they were violated. We found that CCREM performed the best when its assumptions are all met. However, when homoscedasticity assumptions are violated, OLS-CRVE and FE-CRVE provided similar or better performance than CCREM. FE-CRVE showed the best performance when the exogeneity assumption is violated. Thus, we recommend two-way FE-CRVE as a good alternative to CCREM, particularly if the homoscedasticity or exogeneity assumptions of the CCREM might be in doubt.","PeriodicalId":356396,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2021 AERA Annual Meeting","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Competing Approaches to Analyzing Cross-Classified Data: Random Effects Models, Ordinary Least Squares, or Fixed Effects with Cluster Robust Standard Errors\",\"authors\":\"Young Ri Lee, J. Pustejovsky\",\"doi\":\"10.31234/osf.io/f9mr2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cross-classified random effects modeling (CCREM) is a common approach for analyzing cross-classified data in education. However, when the focus of a study is on the regression coefficients at level one rather than on the random effects, ordinary least squares regression with cluster robust variance estimators (OLS-CRVE) or fixed effects regression with CRVE (FE-CRVE) could be appropriate approaches. These alternative methods may be advantageous because they rely on weaker assumptions than what is required by CCREM. We conducted a Monte Carlo Simulation study to compare the performance of CCREM, OLS-CRVE, and FE-CRVE in models with crossed random effects, including conditions where homoscedasticity assumptions and exogeneity assumptions held and conditions where they were violated. We found that CCREM performed the best when its assumptions are all met. However, when homoscedasticity assumptions are violated, OLS-CRVE and FE-CRVE provided similar or better performance than CCREM. FE-CRVE showed the best performance when the exogeneity assumption is violated. Thus, we recommend two-way FE-CRVE as a good alternative to CCREM, particularly if the homoscedasticity or exogeneity assumptions of the CCREM might be in doubt.\",\"PeriodicalId\":356396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2021 AERA Annual Meeting\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2021 AERA Annual Meeting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f9mr2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2021 AERA Annual Meeting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f9mr2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

交叉分类随机效应建模(CCREM)是分析教育交叉分类数据的常用方法。然而,当研究的重点是一级回归系数而不是随机效应时,使用聚类稳健方差估计的普通最小二乘回归(OLS-CRVE)或使用CRVE的固定效应回归(FE-CRVE)可能是合适的方法。这些替代方法可能是有利的,因为它们依赖于比CCREM所需的更弱的假设。我们进行了蒙特卡罗模拟研究,比较了CCREM、OLS-CRVE和FE-CRVE在交叉随机效应模型中的表现,包括均方差假设和外生性假设成立的条件以及违反这些假设的条件。我们发现CCREM在所有假设都满足时表现最好。然而,当不符合均方差假设时,OLS-CRVE和FE-CRVE的性能与CCREM相似或更好。当外生性假设不成立时,FE-CRVE表现出最好的性能。因此,我们推荐双向FE-CRVE作为CCREM的一个很好的替代方案,特别是如果CCREM的均方差或外生性假设可能存在疑问。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Competing Approaches to Analyzing Cross-Classified Data: Random Effects Models, Ordinary Least Squares, or Fixed Effects with Cluster Robust Standard Errors
Cross-classified random effects modeling (CCREM) is a common approach for analyzing cross-classified data in education. However, when the focus of a study is on the regression coefficients at level one rather than on the random effects, ordinary least squares regression with cluster robust variance estimators (OLS-CRVE) or fixed effects regression with CRVE (FE-CRVE) could be appropriate approaches. These alternative methods may be advantageous because they rely on weaker assumptions than what is required by CCREM. We conducted a Monte Carlo Simulation study to compare the performance of CCREM, OLS-CRVE, and FE-CRVE in models with crossed random effects, including conditions where homoscedasticity assumptions and exogeneity assumptions held and conditions where they were violated. We found that CCREM performed the best when its assumptions are all met. However, when homoscedasticity assumptions are violated, OLS-CRVE and FE-CRVE provided similar or better performance than CCREM. FE-CRVE showed the best performance when the exogeneity assumption is violated. Thus, we recommend two-way FE-CRVE as a good alternative to CCREM, particularly if the homoscedasticity or exogeneity assumptions of the CCREM might be in doubt.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Examining the Role of Epistemic Empathy in Responsive Teaching "Deprived and Disadvantaged": Federal Advocacy for Gifted Youth in the United States, 1965–1975 Exploring the College Choice of Latinx Students in Rural Texas The Emergence of Teacher Self in the Elementary Classroom Different or Differentiated? Recoupling Policy and Practice in an Era of Accountability
×
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