Multilevel Modeling Approaches to the Study of LGBT-Parent Families: Methods for Dyadic Data Analysis

  • JuliAnna Z. Smith
  • Aline G. Sayer
  • Abbie E. Goldberg
Chapter

Abstract

While obtaining information from multiple members of a family can enhance researchers’ understanding of families, it can also present complications when trying to analyze the data, as most traditional statistical methods assume that data originate from independent sources. An additional problem arises when examining data from partners in same-sex couples, which are often “indistinguishable” as they cannot be distinguished on the basis of some characteristic (e.g., gender) meaningful to the analysis. This chapter introduces approaches to analyzing data from “indistinguishable” partners using multilevel modeling for both cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. It also discusses ways to examine data from multiple informants—for instance, when both mothers in lesbian-parent families report on their child’s well-being. Examples are drawn from the authors’ recent projects to illustrate the statistical concepts and difficulties.

References

  1. Ackerman, R. A., Donnellan, M., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). Working with dyadic data in studies of emerging ­adulthood: Specific recommendations, general advice, and practical tips. In F. D. Fincham & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 67–97). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Atkins, D. (2005). Using multilevel models to analyze couple and family treatment data: Basic and advanced issues. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 86–97. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkins, D. C., Klann, N., Marín, R. A., Lo, T. Y., & Hahlweg, K. (2010). Outcomes of couples with infidelity in a community-based sample of couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 212–216. doi:10.1037/a0018789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, J., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. W. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960–973. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Brennan, R. T. (1993). Gender and the relationship between job experiences and psychological distress: A study of dual-earner couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 794–806. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengtson, V. L., & Allen, K. R. (1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, S. & K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 469–504). New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). Accounting for statistical dependency in longitudinal data on dyads. In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 285–298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Brincks, A. M., Feaster, D. J., & Mitrani, V. B. (2010). A multilevel mediation model of stress and coping for women with HIV and their families. Family Process, 49, 517–529. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01337.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systems in human development. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Persons in context: Developmental processes (pp. 25–49). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, L. J., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM5: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen, A., Atkins, D. C., Yi, J., Baucom, D. H., & George, W. H. (2006). Couple and individual adjustment for 2 years following a randomized clinical trial comparing traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1180–1191. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Claxton, A., O’Rourke, N., Smith, J. Z., & DeLongis, A. (2012). Personality traits and marital satisfaction within enduring relationships: An intra-couple concurrence and discrepancy approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coley, R., & Morris, J. (2002). Comparing father and mother reports of father involvement among low-income minority families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 982–997. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00982.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of directional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. doi: 10.1080/01650250444000405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–267. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fergus, S., Lewis, M. A., Darbes, L. A., & Kral, A. H. (2009). Social support moderates the relationship between gay community integration and sexual risk behavior among gay male couples. Health Education & Behavior, 36, 846–859. doi:10.1177/1090198108319891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Georgiades, K., Boyle, M. H., Jenkins, J. M., Sanford, M., & Lipman, E. (2008). A multilevel analysis of whole family functioning using the McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 344–354. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological AssociationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldberg, A. E., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2007). The division of labor and perceptions of parental roles: Lesbian couples across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 297–318. doi:10.1177/0265407507075415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldberg, A. E., & Sayer, A. G. (2006). Lesbian couples’ relationship quality across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 87–100. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00235.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2008a). The social context of lesbian mothers’ anxiety during early parenthood. Parenting: Science & Practice, 8, 213–239. doi: 10.1080/15295190802204801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2008b). Social support and well-being in lesbian and heterosexual preadoptive couples. Family Relations, 57, 281–291. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00500.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2009a). Perceived parenting skill across the transition to adoptive parenthood: A study of lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 861–870. doi:10.1037/a0017009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2009b). Predicting non-African American lesbian and heterosexual preadoptive couples’ openness to adopting an African American child. Family Relations, 58, 346–360. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2009.00557.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, support and mental health: Lesbian and gay male couples across the transition parenthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 139–150. doi:10.1037/a0021684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., & Kashy, D. (2010). Preadoptive factors predicting lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples relationship quality across the transition parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 221–232. doi:10.1037/a0019615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffin, D., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430–439. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jenkins, J. M., Cheung, C., Frampton, K., Rasbash, J., Boyle, M. H., & Georgiades, K. (2009). The use of multilevel modeling for the investigation of family process. European Journal of Developmental Science, 3, 131–149.Google Scholar
  29. Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., Burt, S. A., & McGue, M. (2008). Growth curve models for indistinguishable dyads using multilevel modeling and structural equation modeling: The case of adolescent twins’ conflict with their mothers. Developmental Psychology, 44, 316–329. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451–477). New York, NY: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433–448. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 422–431. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359–366. doi:10.1037/a0019651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kretschmer, T., & Pike, A. (2010). Associations between adolescent siblings’ relationship quality and similarity and differences in values. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 411–418. doi:10.1037/a0020060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuo, M., Mohler, B., Raudenbush, S. L., & Earls, F. J. (2000). Assessing exposure to violence using multiple informants: Application of hierarchical linear model. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 1049–1056. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kurdek, L. A. (1997). The link between facets of neuroticism and dimensions of relationship commitment: Evidence from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 503–514. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.11.4.503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting ­couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, ­553–568. doi:10.2307/353528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kurdek, L. A. (2003). Differences between gay and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 411–436. doi: 10.1177/02654075030204001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kurdek, L. A. (2008). Change in relationship quality for partners from lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 701–711. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.5.701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986a). Interaction of sex role self-concept with relationship quality and relationship beliefs in married, heterosexual cohabitating, gay, and lesbian couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 365–370. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986b). Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabitating, and gay and lesbian relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 711–720. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lyons, K. S., Zarit, S. H., Sayer, A. G., & Whitlach, C. J. (2002). Caregiving as a dyadic process: Perspectives from caregiver and receiver. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, 195–204.Google Scholar
  44. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample size for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86–92. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86Google Scholar
  45. Meteyer, K., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2010). Father involvement among working-class, dual-earner couples. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, & Practice about Men as Fathers, 8, 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 599–620. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. O’Rourke, N., Kupferschmidt, A. L., Claxton, A., Smith, J. Z., Chappell, N., & Beattie, B. L. (2010). Psychological resilience predicts depressive symptoms among spouses of persons with Alzheimer disease over time. Aging and Mental Health, 14, 984–993. doi:10.1080/13607863.2010.501063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olsen, J. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11, 127–141. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Papp, L. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. (2007). Linkages between spouses’ psychological ­distress and marital conflict in the home. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 533–537. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Papp, L. M., Pendry, P., & Adam, E. K. (2009). Mother-adolescent physiological synchrony in naturalistic settings: Within-family cortisol associations and moderators. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 882–894. doi:10.1037/a0017147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Patterson, C. J., Sutfin, E. L., & Fulcher, M. (2004). Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parenting couples: Correlates of specialized versus shared patterns. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 179–189. doi:10.1023/B:JADE.0000035626.90331.47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perry-Jenkins, M., Goldberg, A. E., Pierce, C. P., & Sayer, A. G. (2007). Shift work, role overload, and the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage & Family, 69, 123–138. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00349.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Perry-Jenkins, M., Smith, J. Z., Goldberg, A., & Logan, J. N. (2011). Working-class jobs and new parents’ mental health. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 1117–1132. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00871.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raudenbush, S. W. (2008). Many small groups. In J. de Leeuw, E. Meijer, J. de Leeuw, & E. Meijer (Eds.), Handbook of multilevel analysis (pp. 207–236). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-73186-5_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R., & Barnett, R. (1995). A multivariate hierarchical model for studying psychological change within married couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 161–174. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.9.2.161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  58. Regan, P. C., Medina, R., & Joshi, A. (2001). Partner ­preferences among homosexual men and women: What is desirable in a sex partner is not necessarily desirable in a romantic partner. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 625–633. doi:10.2224/sbp. 2001.29. 7.625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sayer, A. G., & Klute, M. M. (2005). Analyzing couples and families: Multilevel methods. In V. L. Bengtson, A. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 289–313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simpson, L. E., Atkins, D. C., Gattis, K. S., & Christensen, A. (2008). Low-level relationship aggression and couple therapy outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 102–111. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soliz, J., Thorson, A. R., & Rittenour, C. E. (2009). Communicative correlates of satisfaction, family identity, and group salience in multiracial/ethnic families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 819–832. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00637.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. West, T. V., Popp, D., & Kenny, D. A. (2008). A guide for the estimation of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor-partner interdependence model approach. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 321–336. doi: 10.1177/0146167207311199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Willett, J. B. (1989). Some results on reliability for the longitudinal measurement of change: Implications for the design of studies of individual growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 587–602. doi: 10.1177/001316448904900309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Woody, E., & Sadler, P. (2005). Structural equation models for interchangeable dyads: Being the same makes a difference. Psychological Methods, 10, 139–158. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.2.139CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • JuliAnna Z. Smith
    • 1
  • Aline G. Sayer
    • 2
  • Abbie E. Goldberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Center for Research on FamiliesUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Center for Research on FamiliesUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyClark UniversityWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations