ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Disaggregating level-specific effects in cross-classified multilevel models.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Investigating the impact of trial retractions on the healthcare evidence ecosystem (VITALITY Study I): retrospective cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In psychology and other fields, data often have a cross-classified structure, whereby observations are nested within multiple types of non-hierarchical clusters (e.g., repeated measures cross-classified by persons and stimuli). This paper discusses ways that, in cross-classified multilevel models, slopes of lower-level predictors can implicitly reflect an ambiguous blend of multiple effects (for instance, a purely observation-level effect as well as a unique between-cluster effect for each type of cluster). The possibility of conflating multiple effects of lower-level predictors is well recognized for non-cross-classified multilevel models, but has not been fully discussed or clarified for cross-classified contexts. Consequently, in published cross-classified modeling applications, this possibility is almost always ignored, and researchers routinely specify models that conflate multiple effects. In this paper, we show why this common practice can be problematic, and show how to disaggregate level-specific effects in cross-classified models. We provide a novel suite of options that include fully cluster-mean-centered, partially cluster-mean-centered, and contextual effect models, each of which provides a unique interpretation of model parameters. We further clarify how to avoid both fixed and random conflation, the latter of which is widely misunderstood even in non-cross-classified models. We provide simulation results showing the possible deleterious impact of such conflation in cross-classified models, and walk through pedagogical examples to illustrate the disaggregation of level-specific effects. We conclude by considering additional model complexities that can arise with cross-classification, providing guidance for researchers in choosing among model specifications, and describing newly available software to aid researchers who wish to disaggregate effects in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37993674What 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.