Message/Author |
|
Jinxin ZHU posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 - 6:27 pm
|
|
|
Dear Dr. Muthens, I want to ran a two-level growth model, and have non-linear growth: three time points, free the time score at third time points at both student and school level. I found that the starting value of the time score affect the final estimates. Do you have any suggetion? Is there any example using Mplus to ran a two-level non-linear growth model? Thank you so much! |
|
|
Be sure to hold the free time score equal across the two levels. To avoid starting value effects you can try Starts = 10. |
|
Jinxin ZHU posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 - 6:43 pm
|
|
|
Thank you so much. Would you please suggestion how to constrain the free time score equal across the two levels? I tried to label the time score but was told that "Equality/parameter labels are not allowed in a growth statement." Also, what will happen if they are not set to be equal across the two levels? Thank you so much! |
|
Jinxin ZHU posted on Thursday, September 29, 2016 - 12:59 am
|
|
|
Dear Dr. Muthen, I have solved the problem of labeling using the 'By' option, but still got the warning£º THE LATENT VARIABLE COVARIANCE MATRIX (PSI) IS NOT POSITIVE DEFINITE. I changed the stating value and it helped. However, I found that either the starting value of time score or staring value set using "Starts =" affect the estimates and do not know which result I should use. Would you please kindly suggest what I should do and why different starting value result in different estimation? Thanks again! |
|
|
Choose the solution with the highest loglikelihood value. |
|
Jinxin ZHU posted on Thursday, September 29, 2016 - 6:20 pm
|
|
|
Thank you so much! Is there any example specifying the syntax of multilevel non-linear growth model, as well as multiple process multilevel non-linear growth model? |
|
|
No, but you can do most anything using BY using estimated time scores to capture non-linearity. See also articles by Grimm on our website under Growth Modeling - this takes a more general approach to non-linear growth. |
|
Jinxin ZHU posted on Thursday, February 23, 2017 - 7:47 pm
|
|
|
When running a Two-level parallel process latent growth model, the default estimator is MLR. However, I got a warning that THE LATENT VARIABLE COVARIANCE MATRIX (PSI) IS NOT POSITIVE DEFINITE. 1. When I chose Estimator = ULSMV, the problem solved. Will the result be affected by using different estimator? 2. I found the model data fit did not agree with each other. The RMSEA less than 0.05, while CFI and TLI around 0.85. Are there any guiding suggestions regarding model-data fit for multilevel models? Thank you very much! |
|
|
1. Please send the two outputs and your license number to support@statmodel.com. 2. Model fit statistics do not always agree with each other. |
|
Back to top |