ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Model selection of GLMMs in the analysis of count data in single-case studies: A Monte Carlo simulation.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) have great potential to deal with count data in single-case experimental designs (SCEDs). However, applied researchers have faced challenges in making various statistical decisions when using such advanced statistical techniques in their own research. This study focused on a critical issue by investigating the selection of an appropriate distribution to handle different types of count data in SCEDs due to overdispersion and/or zero-inflation. To achieve this, I proposed two model selection frameworks, one based on calculating information criteria (AIC and BIC) and another based on utilizing a multistage-model selection procedure. Four data scenarios were simulated including Poisson, negative binominal (NB), zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP), and zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB). The same set of models (i.e., Poisson, NB, ZIP, and ZINB) were fitted for each scenario. In the simulation, I evaluated 10 model selection strategies within the two frameworks by assessing the model selection bias and its consequences on the accuracy of the treatment effect estimates and inferential statistics. Based on the simulation results and previous work, I provide recommendations regarding which model selection methods should be adopted in different scenarios. The implications, limitations, and future research directions are also discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38987450What 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.