Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38987450›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

Model selection of GLMMs in the analysis of count data in single-case studies: A Monte Carlo simulation.

Haoran Li

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Haoran LiDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, 56 E River Rd, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. haoranli@umn.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0886-4172

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Monte Carlo MethodComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLinear ModelsModels, StatisticalPoisson DistributionResearch DesignSingle-Case Studies as TopicCount dataGeneralized liner mixed modelsModel selectionMonte Carlo simulationOverdispersionSingle-case experimental designZero-inflation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.