Estimating multilevel logistic regression models when the number of clusters is low: A comparison of different statistical software procedures

133Citations
Citations of this article
185Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Multilevel logistic regression models are increasingly being used to analyze clustered data in medical, public health, epidemiological, and educational research. Procedures for estimating the parameters of such models are available in many statistical software packages. There is currently little evidence on the minimum number of clusters necessary to reliably fit multilevel regression models. We conducted a Monte Carlo study to compare the performance of different statistical software procedures for estimating multilevel logistic regression models when the number of clusters was low. We examined procedures available in BUGS, HLM, R, SAS, and Stata. We found that there were qualitative differences in the performance of different software procedures for estimating multilevel logistic models when the number of clusters was low. Among the likelihood-based procedures, estimation methods based on adaptive Gauss-Hermite approximations to the likelihood (glmer in R and xtlogit in Stata) or adaptive Gaussian quadrature (Proc NLMIXED in SAS) tended to have superior performance for estimating variance components when the number of clusters was small, compared to software procedures based on penalized quasi-likelihood. However, only Bayesian estimation with BUGS allowed for accurate estimation of variance components when there were fewer than 10 clusters. For all statistical software procedures, estimation of variance components tended to be poor when there were only five subjects per cluster, regardless of the number of clusters. © 2010 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Austin, P. C. (2010). Estimating multilevel logistic regression models when the number of clusters is low: A comparison of different statistical software procedures. International Journal of Biostatistics, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1557-4679.1195

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free