Uses for Multilevel Models

  • Robert B. Smith


Drawing on the contextual, evaluative, and summarizing studies of this book, this chapter explicates 11 uses for multilevel models and defines relevant vocabulary, concepts, and notational conventions. Because multilevel models are composed of both fixed and random components, statisticians refer to them as mixed models (Littell et al. 2006). Because multilevel models focus on data at different hierarchical levels, educational researchers refer to them as hierarchical models (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). In the contextual analyses of data at one point in time, the level-1 response variable and its covariates are conceptualized as being grouped (or contained) within the level-2 units. In the analyses of data at several points in time, the level-1 response variable is an observation at a time point on an entity, and the repeated observations on that entity are said to be grouped or contained by that entity. The entity (e.g., a person, an organization, a country) is the level-2 unit. Ideally, multilevel models assess change on disaggregated data at several points in time (e.g., the scores on the repeated assessments of individual students who are grouped into classrooms). When the chapters of this book model aggregated data, it is because the disaggregated data are not available.1 By applying special cases of generalized linear mixed models—the Poisson and logit—some chapters model response variables that are not normally distributed. By applying multilevel models, all of the core chapters address the clustering of level-1 units when they are contained within level-2 units.


Propensity Score Multilevel Model Office Type Comparison School Comprehensive School Reform 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Achen, Christopher H. 1986. The statistical analysis of quasi-experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barro, Robert. 1999. Determinants of democracy. Journal of Political Economy 107(6): S158–S183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Claeskens, Gerda, and Nils Lid Hjort. 2008. Model selection and model averaging. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Demicheli, Vittorio, Tom Jefferson, Alessandro Rivetti, and Deirdre Price. 2005. Vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella in children. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Issue 4, Art. No: CD004407Google Scholar
  5. DerSimonian, Rebecca, and Nan Laird. 1986. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 7: 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Firth, David. 1993. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holland, Paul. 1986. Statistics and causal inference (with comments). Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Inglehart, Ronald. 2003. Human values and social change: Findings from the values surveys. Boston, MA: Brill.Google Scholar
  9. Institute of Medicine. 2004. Vaccines and autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gabriel Salman Lenz. 2000. Corruption, culture, and markets. In Culture matters: How values shape human progress, ed. Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Littell, Ramon C., George A. Milliken, Walter W. Stroup, and Russell D. Wolfinger. 1996. SAS for mixed models. Cary NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Littell, Ramon C., George A. Milliken, Walter W. Stroup, Russell D. Wolfinger, and Oliver Schabenberger. 2006. SAS for mixed models, 2nd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Lucas, William A., Sarah Y. Cooper, and Elena M. Rodriquez-Falcon. 2006. On the recognition of venturing opportunities in science and technology. Cambridge-MIT Institute, March.Google Scholar
  14. Mosteller, Frederick. 1995. The Tennessee study of class size in the early grades. Critical Issues for Children and Youth 5(Summer/Fall): 113–127.Google Scholar
  15. Raudenbush, Stephen W., Anthony S. Bryk, Yuk Fai Cheong, and Richard T. Congdon Jr. 2000. HLM 5 hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  16. Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Donald B. Rubin. 1985. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician 39: 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Russell, Michael, and Ryan Robinson. 2000. Co-nect retrospective outcomes study. Center for the study of testing, evaluation and educational policy. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. April.Google Scholar
  18. Siska, Andrea, C. Truffer, S. Smith, S. Keehan, J. Cylus, J.A. Poisal, M.K. Clemens, and J. Lizonitz. 2009. Health spending projections through 2018: Recession effects add uncertainty to the outlook. Health Affairs 28(2): w346–w357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Susser, Mervyn. 1973. Causal thinking in the health sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Winship, Christopher, and Michael Sobel. 2004. Causal inference in sociological studies. In Handbook of data analysis, ed. Melissa Hardy and Alan Bryman. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Structural Research Inc.CambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations