Advertisement

Psychometrika

, Volume 72, Issue 4, pp 505–533 | Cite as

Multilevel Modeling with Correlated Effects

  • Jee-Seon KimEmail author
  • Edward W. Frees
Theory and Methods

Abstract

When there exist omitted effects, measurement error, and/or simultaneity in multilevel models, explanatory variables may be correlated with random components, and standard estimation methods do not provide consistent estimates of model parameters. This paper introduces estimators that are consistent under such conditions. By employing generalized method of moments (GMM) estimation techniques in multilevel modeling, the authors present a series of estimators along a robust to efficient continuum. This continuum depends on the assumptions that the analyst makes regarding the extent of the correlated effects. It is shown that the GMM approach provides an overarching framework that encompasses well-known estimators such as fixed and random effects estimators and also provides more options. These GMM estimators can be expressed as instrumental variable (IV) estimators which enhances their interpretability. Moreover, by exploiting the hierarchical structure of the data, the current technique does not require additional variables unlike traditional IV methods. Further, statistical tests are developed to compare the different estimators. A simulation study examines the finite sample properties of the estimators and tests and confirms the theoretical order of the estimators with respect to their robustness and efficiency. It further shows that not only are regression coefficients biased, but variance components may be severely underestimated in the presence of correlated effects. Empirical standard errors are employed as they are less sensitive to correlated effects when compared to model-based standard errors. An example using student achievement data shows that GMM estimators can be effectively used in a search for the most efficient among unbiased estimators.

Keywords

generalized method of moments omitted variable bias model specification test robust estimation consistency empirical standard errors hierarchical linear models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, G.E., Jimerson, S.R., & Whipple, A.D. (2002). Grade retention: Achievement and mental health outcomes. National Association of School Psychologists. Google Scholar
  2. Arellano, M. (1993). On the testing of correlated effects with panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 59, 87–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arellano, M. (2003). Panel data econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental-variable estimation of error components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boardman, A.E., & Murnane, R.J. (1979). Using panel data to improve estimates of the determinants of educational achievement. Sociology of Education, 52, 113–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breusch, T.S., Mizon, G.E., & Schmidt, P. (1989). Efficient estimation using panel data. Econometrica, 57, 695–700. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diggle, P.J., Heagarty, P., Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S.L. (2002). Analysis of longitudinal data (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Ebbes, P., Bockenholt, U., & Wedel, M. (2004). Regressor and random-effects dependencies in multilevel models. Statistica Neerlandica, 58, 161–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ecob, R., & Goldstein, H. (1983). Instrumental variable methods for the estimation of test score reliability. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 223–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrenberg, R.G., & Brewer, D.J. (1994). Do school and teacher characteristics matter? Evidence from high school and beyond. Economics of Education Review, 13, 1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrenberg, R.G., & Brewer, D.J. (1995). Did teachers’ verbal ability and race matter in the 1960s? Coleman revisited. Economics of Education Review, 14, 1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fielding, A. (2004). The role of the Hausman test and whether higher level effects should be treated as random or fixed. Multilevel Modelling Newsletter, 16, 3–9. Google Scholar
  14. Frees, E.W. (2001). Omitted variables in panel data models. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 29, 1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frees, E.W. (2004). Longitudinal and panel data: Analysis and applications in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  16. Frees, E.W., & Kim, J.-S. (2006). Multilevel model prediction. Psychometrika, 71, 79–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S., & Rubin, D.B. (2004). Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall. Google Scholar
  18. Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D.J. (1997). Why don’t schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. The Journal of Human Resources, 32, 505–523. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  20. Griliches, Z. (1977). Estimating the returns to schooling. Econometrica, 45, 1–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanushek, E.A., Kane, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (2004). Disruption versus Tiebout improvement: The costs and benefits of switching schools. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1721–1746. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hausman, J.A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46, 1251–1271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hausman, J.A., & Taylor, W.E. (1981). Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica, 49, 1377–1398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hayashi, F. (2000). Econometrics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  25. Im, K.S., Ahn, S.C., Schmidt, P., & Wooldridge, J.M. (1999). Efficient estimation of panel data models with strictly exogenous explanatory variables. Journal of Econometrics, 93, 177–201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kiefer, N.M. (1980). Estimation of fixed effects models for time series of cross sections with arbitrary intertemporal covariance. Journal of Econometrics, 14, 195–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, J.-S., & Frees, E.W. (2005). Fixed effects estimation in multilevel models. University of Wisconsin working paper. Available at http://research.bus.wisc.edu/jfrees/.
  28. Kim, J.-S., & Frees, E.W. (2006). Omitted variables in multilevel models. Psychometrika, 71, 659–690. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koop, G., Osiewalski, J., & Steel, M.F.J. (1997). Bayesian efficiency analysis through individual effects: Hospital cost frontiers. Journal of Econometrics, 76, 77–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Little, R.J., & Rubin, D.B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  31. Ludwig, J., & Bassi, L.J. (1999). The puzzling case of school resources and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 385–403. Google Scholar
  32. McCaffrey, D.F., Koretz, D., Louis, T.A., & Hamilton, L. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 67–101. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Natarajan, R., & Kass, R.E. (2000). Reference Bayesian methods for generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 227–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newey, W. (1985). Generalized method of moments specification testing. Journal of Econometrics, 29, 229–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rao, C.R. (1973). Linear statistical inference and its applications (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  36. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage. Google Scholar
  37. Rice, N., Jones, A., & Goldstein, H. (1997). Multilevel models where the random effects are correlated with the fixed predictors: A conditioned iterative generalised least squares estimator (CIGLS) (Centre for Health Economics Technical Paper 10). York: University of York. Google Scholar
  38. Rothstein, J. (2004). College performance predictions and the SAT. Journal of Econometrics, 121, 297–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal and structural equation models. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Google Scholar
  40. Snijders, T.A.B., & Berkhof, J. (2007). Diagnostic checks for multilevel models. In J. de Leeuw & I. Kreft (Eds.), Handbook of multilevel analysis (in press). New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  41. Snijders, T.A.B., & Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  42. Spencer, N., & Fielding, A. (2002). A comparison of modelling strategies for value-added analyses of educational data. Computational Statistics, 17, 103–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steele, F. (2003). Selection effects of source of contraceptive supply in an analysis of contraceptive discontinuation: Multilevel modelling when random effects are correlated with an explanatory variable. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 166, 407–424. Google Scholar
  44. Verbeke, G., Spiessens, B., & Lesaffre, E. (2001). Conditional linear mixed models. The American Statistician, 55, 25–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Wisconsin at MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.School of BusinessUniversity of Wisconsin at MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations