2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.11.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Decomposing the total variation in a nested random effects model of neighborhood, household, and individual components when the dependent variable is dichotomous: implications for adolescent marijuana use

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
4
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Including time in this model should not alter the variance structure of the outcome because time is not clustered within communities. Evidence of between-person and betweencommunity variation at this step justifies our addressing individual-level and community-level predictors that may "explain" variation in the intercept (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992;Diez Roux, 2004;Wright, Bobashev, & Novak, 2005). Cross-level interactions were tested during model building to evaluate whether the effects of community-level characteristics differ by demographic characteristics of residents; and the interaction between urbanization and time was tested to evaluate whether the impact of urbanization on the outcome differed by time period.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Including time in this model should not alter the variance structure of the outcome because time is not clustered within communities. Evidence of between-person and betweencommunity variation at this step justifies our addressing individual-level and community-level predictors that may "explain" variation in the intercept (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992;Diez Roux, 2004;Wright, Bobashev, & Novak, 2005). Cross-level interactions were tested during model building to evaluate whether the effects of community-level characteristics differ by demographic characteristics of residents; and the interaction between urbanization and time was tested to evaluate whether the impact of urbanization on the outcome differed by time period.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is possible then to determine the proportion of variation in marital disruption that occurs across individuals versus that which occurs within individuals. Although there are alternatives (Wright, Bobashev, & Novak, 2004), the simplest strategy is to assume a latent‐variable approach (assuming that the binary outcome, marital dissolution, is simply the realization of a latent, unobserved propensity). In that case the proportion of variance that occurs within individuals is ), where π 2 /3 is the variance of the standard logistic distribution ( π = 3.29) and is the variance estimated when only an intercept term is fitted ( estimated with no covariates).…”
Section: Random Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Marginalized logistic regression provides a modicum of control, but as in random effects logistic regression, marginal correlations are not easily determined from variance components. Another difficulty in using random effects logistic regression to estimate correlation parameters owes to the fact that the variance components are on the log-odds scale whereas the error variance is on the probability scale; a simulation method has been suggested to circumvent this problem [30,31].…”
Section: Justification: Population-averaged Model Approach For Clustementioning
confidence: 99%