发帖
雷达卡
I’m running a model where 14-day diaries (L1) are nested within 72 subjects (L2). I’m using HLM 6.0 and the outcome is a count variable (number of drinks) and at Level 1 I have weekend (dichotomous), positive affect (continuous), and negative affect (continuous). All level-1 variables are measured at the daily level. At level 2, the intercept contains parent education (less than some college vs. some college or more), race (white vs. non-white), gender, full-time college (yes/no), and the average positive and negative affect over the 14-days. Interactions between level-1 and level-2 variables include weekend(L1)*full-time college(L2), positive affect(L1)*full-time college(L2), and negative affect(L1)*full-time college(L2).
The method of estimation reported in HLM output is restricted PQL. I specified the distribution of the outcome variable as Poisson (constant exposure).
HLM output gives me two types of results: unit-specific model and population-specific model. Then for each, I also have results for robust standard errors. I’m interpreting the population-specific model. When looking at the difference in standard errors between the robust and non-robust standard errors, they are different (in most cases going from significant to non-significant results).
Looking thru previous threads, someone suggested Mass and Hox’s 2004 paper on robustness issues in multilevel analysis. Do the suggestions from Mass and Hox also apply for models with count and dichotomous type of outcomes? Or is that unrelated to the use of robust standard errors? I’m also getting a little confused because my method of estimation is not ML but restricted PQL. Does that play any role in which standard errors I need to report (robust vs. non-robust)?
京公网安备 11010802022788号
