| Message/Author |
|
|
|
|
Hi Drs. Muthen,
I am working with a sample that was stratified based on scores on a questionnaire. A weight variable was included with the data to adjust for selection based on the stratification. In most cases, I would use TYPE=COMPLEX to analyze this data.
However, the data come from multiple sites. So the sampling design: 1) over a dozen sites selected based on practical concerns, 2) site population stratified by questionnaire scores and sample selected from each stratum, 3) weight variable created to adjust for selection.
I understand how to incorporate the weight and stratum variables in MPlus (using TYPE=COMPLEX), but how do I incorporate the fact that the data come from different sites?
Thanks,
Jim |
|
|
|
|
| Multiple group analysis or if you have at least 30 to 50 sites or more you could consider multilevel modeling. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks Linda. When I run the model as a multiple group analysis, results are provided by group (i.e., there are no results for the overall sample). Is there any way to get results for the entire sample, accounting for the fact that they come from a number of different sites (there are 14)? I am looking to "control/correct" for the fact that the data coming from multiple sites just as I "control/correct" for stratification and weighting using TYPE=COMPLEX.
Thanks,
Jim |
|
|
|
|
Multiple group analysis does not provide results for the overall sample. If you remove the GROUPING option, you will receive results for the entire sample.
You don't have enough sites to use TYPE=COMPLEX or TYPE=TWOELVEL. You can control for site by using 13 dummy variables representing site as covariates in your model. |
|
|
|
|
Estimated models will consist of a variety of latent factor (CFA) models. Given that I would like to control for site in my analyses, in the dummy variable scenario, would it make more sense to regress observed indicators on the dummy variables, or to regress latent variables on the dummy variables?
I'm guessing that regressing observed indicators on the dummy variables would be more appropriate, but I am not certain.
Thanks again,
Jim |
|
|
|
|
| You would hope that sites don't have indicator-specific differences which would be hard to work with. So regressing the latent variables on the dummies would be at least the starting model (from which you may look for "item bias" - evidence of the need for direct effects; see our Topic 1 handout). |
|
|
|
|
This makes sense; thank you.
Quick related question: I have been requesting "output=standardized" in these models (TYPE is COMPLEX MIXTURE; multiple group analysis using "knownclass"). MPlus is printing
STANDARDIZED MODEL RESULTS
STDYX Standardization
Two-Tailed
Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value
STDY Standardization
Two-Tailed
Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value
STD Standardization
Two-Tailed
Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value
but is not providing any values under these headers (nor under the R-square headers). Is there any way for me to obtain standardized estimates of model parameters (especially loadings & thresholds)? If not, how can I convert loadings and thresholds into a meaningful metric (I would like to be able to describe measurement parameters ala IRT)?
Thanks,
Jim |
|
|
|
|
| This is a support question. Please send your full output and license number to support@statmodel.com. |
|
|
| Back to top |
