ArticlePloS one2012
Clarifying the use of aggregated exposures in multilevel models: self-included vs. self-excluded measures.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple imputation of multilevel data with single-level models: A fully conditional specification approach using adjusted group means.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Both individual and peer growth mindsets matter for academic resilience.NPJ science of learning · 2026Article
- Unraveling Causality: Innovations in Epidemiologic Methods.JMA journal · 2025Article
- Association between organizational characteristics of community-oriented mental health facilities and treatment adequacy. A multilevel analysis from Lombardy, Italy.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Mental Health in Adolescents with a Migration Background in 29 European Countries: The Buffering Role of Social Capital.Journal of youth and adolescence · 2021Article
- Workplace social capital and refraining from seeking medical care in Japanese employees: a 1-year prospective cohort study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
- School- and Individual-level Predictors of Weight Status Misperception among Korean Adolescents: A National Online Survey.PloS one · 2016Article
- Contextual influence on condom use in commercial sex venues: A multi-level analysis among female sex workers and gatekeepers in Guangxi, China.Social science research · 2015Article
- Individual and contextual factors associated with verbal bullying among Brazilian adolescents.BMC pediatrics · 2015Article
- Group involvement and self-rated health among the Japanese elderly: an examination of bonding and bridging social capital.BMC public health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultilevel analyses are ideally suited to assess the effects of ecological (higher level) and individual (lower level) exposure variables simultaneously. In applying such analyses to measures of ecologies in epidemiological studies, individual variables are usually aggregated into the higher level unit. Typically, the aggregated measure includes responses of every individual belonging to that group (i.e. it constitutes a self-included measure). More recently, researchers have developed an aggregate measure which excludes the response of the individual to whom the aggregate measure is linked (i.e. a self-excluded measure). In this study, we clarify the substantive and technical properties of these two measures when they are used as exposures in multilevel models.
methodsAlthough the differences between the two aggregated measures are mathematically subtle, distinguishing between them is important in terms of the specific scientific questions to be addressed. We then show how these measures can be used in two distinct types of multilevel models-self-included model and self-excluded model-and interpret the parameters in each model by imposing hypothetical interventions. The concept is tested on empirical data of workplace social capital and employees' systolic blood pressure.
resultsResearchers assume group-level interventions when using a self-included model, and individual-level interventions when using a self-excluded model. Analytical re-parameterizations of these two models highlight their differences in parameter interpretation. Cluster-mean centered self-included models enable researchers to decompose the collective effect into its within- and between-group components. The benefit of cluster-mean centering procedure is further discussed in terms of hypothetical interventions.
conclusionsWhen investigating the potential roles of aggregated variables, researchers should carefully explore which type of model-self-included or self-excluded-is suitable for a given situation, particularly when group sizes are relatively small.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.