University:
University of Michigan
Course:
STATS 605 | Advanced Topics in Modeling and Data Analysis
Academic year:

2019
Views:

388

Pages:

15
Author:

Walker G

The Structure of Nested Data Level 2 Level 1 (lowest level) The Structure of Nested Data Individuals (level 2) Diary Days (level 1) The Structure of Nested Data Individuals (level 2) Longitudinal Waves (level 1) The Structure of Nested Data Teams (level 2) Employees (level 1) The Structure of Nested Data Individual (level 3) Daily diary (level 2) Momentary Assessment (level 1) Number of levels is determined by the nature of the data The Structure of Nested Data Companies (level 3) Teams (level 2) Employees (level 1) Number of levels is determined by the nature of the data The Structure of Nested Data The Cross-Classified Model Individual Day 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Interdependence Within Individuals 1 2 3 The Structure of Nested Data The Cross-Classified Model Individual Day 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Interdependence Within Days (can be, but not always the case with diary data) 1 2 3 The Structure of Nested Data The Cross-Classified Model Individual Diary 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Day Not sure if your data has interdependence within days? Test ICC using Day as cluster variable The Structure of Nested Data The Cross-Classified Model Participant Ratings 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Target Judd, Westfall, & Kenny, 2012 (JPSP) The Structure of Nested Data The Cross-Classified Model Participant Ratings 1 3 Target 2 3 1 2 2 3 The Structure of Nested Data Dyadic Data Dyad Person A B A B A B A B The Structure of Nested Data Longitudinal Dyadic Data Note: THIS IS INCORRECT! Dyad Person Day A 1 2 A B 3 1 2 3 1 2 B 3 1 2 3 The Structure of Nested Data Longitudinal Dyadic Data Dyad Score A1 Dyad B1 A2 B2 A3 B3 A1 B1 A2 B2 A3 B3 What is the structure of this data? 1. Negotiation outcome score for stranger dyads who interact in the lab 2. Employee productivity from 2000 employees in 100 companies. Employees came from 5 different departments in each company 3. Ratings of intelligence for 50 faces by 500 participants who randomly saw 25 of the 50 faces