Two-step analysis of hierarchical data

Abstract

In this article, we describe the package twostep, a bundle of programs to perform analyses of hierarchical data applying the two-step approach. We consider a two-level data setup in which “microlevel” units are nested within “macrolevel” units. One-step models (which can be fit using, for example, mixed) are the most common approach to modeling two-level data. The two-step approach is an alternative in which parameters associated with microlevel and macrolevel predictors are estimated separately for each level. It can be used as an alternative to one-step models if the estimand is a cross-level interaction. We also show how the two-step approach usefully complements one-step approaches by providing exploratory data analysis, descriptive graphs, and regression diagnostics.

Keywords

st0745 twostep hierarchical model mixed model multilevel analysis two-step modeling two-stage regression estimated dependent variable regression EDV exploratory data analysis EDA cross-level interaction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achen

C. H.

2005. Two-step hierarchical estimation: Beyond regression analysis. Political Analysis 13: 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi033.

Allison

P. D.

1999. Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods and Research 28: 186–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124199028002003.

Borjas

G. J.

Sueyoshi

G. T.

1994. A two-stage estimator for probit models with structural group effects. Journal of Econometrics 64: 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)90062-0.

Bowers

Drake

K. W.

2005. EDA for HLM: Visualization when probabilistic inference fails. Political Analysis 13: 301–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi031.

Bryan

M. L.

Jenkins

S. P.

2016a. Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. European Sociological Review 32: 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv059.

Bryan

M. L.

Jenkins

S. P.

2016b. Supplementary material to “Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale”. European Sociological Review 32: 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv059.

Card

1995. The wage curve: A review. Journal of Economic Literature 33: 785–799.

Cleveland

W. S.

1979. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74: 829–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038.

Donald

S. G.

Lang

2007. Inference with difference-in-differences and other panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics 89: 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.89.2.221.

10.

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fuer Sozialforschung. 2006. European Quality of Life Survey, 2003. [Data collection]. U.K. Data Service. SN: 5260. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-5260-1.

11.

Hagerty

M. R.

Veenhoven

2003. Wealth and happiness revisited—Growing national income does go with greater happiness. Social Indicators Research 64: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024790530822.

12.

Hanushek

E. A.

1974. Efficient estimators for regressing regression coefficients. American Statistician 28: 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1974.10479073.

13.

Hayes

R. J.

Moulton

L. H.

2017. Cluster Randomised Trials. 2nd ed. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315370286.

14.

Heisig

J. P.

Schaeffer

2019. Why you should always include a random slope for the lower-level variable involved in a cross-level interaction. European Sociological Review 35: 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcy053.

15.

Heisig

J. P.

Schaeffer

Giesecke

2017. The costs of simplicity: Why multilevel models may benefit from accounting for cross-cluster differences in the effects of controls. American Sociological Review 82: 796–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417717901.

16.

Hox

J. J.

Moerbeek

van de Schoot

2018. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315650982.

17.

Inglehart

1977. The Silent Revolution. Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400869589.

18.

Kedar

Shively

W. P.

2005. Introduction to the special issue. Political Analysis 13: 297–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi027.

19.

King

1997. A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400849208.

20.

Lewis

J. B.

Linzer

D. A.

2005. Estimating regression models in which the dependent variable is based on estimates. Political Analysis 13: 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi026.

21.

Radcliff

2013. The Political Economy of Human Happiness: How Voters’ Choices Determine the Quality of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139344371.

22.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.

Saxonhouse

G. R.

1976. Estimated parameters as dependent variables. American Economic Review 66: 178–183.

24.

Wooldridge

J. M.

2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.40 MB

0.00 MB