The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fixed effects, random effects and GEE: What are the differences?
Abstract
For analyses of longitudinal repeated‐measures data, statistical methods include the random effects model, fixed effects model and the method of generalized estimating equations. We examine the assumptions that underlie these approaches to assessing covariate effects on the mean of a continuous, dichotomous or count outcome. Access to statistical software to implement these models has led to widespread application in numerous disciplines. However, careful consideration should be paid to their critical assumptions to ascertain which model might be appropriate in a given setting. To illustrate similarities and differences that might exist in empirical results, we use a study that assessed depressive symptoms in low‐income pregnant women using a structured instrument with up to five assessments that spanned the pre‐natal and post‐natal periods. Understanding the conceptual differences between the methods is important in their proper application even though empirically they might not differ substantively. The choice of model in specific applications would depend on the relevant questions being addressed, which in turn informs the type of design and data collection that would be relevant. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population
Radloff, L. S. (1977) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662167700100306 · Cited by 53,267
A Global Measure of Perceived Stress
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2136404 · Cited by 32,807
(2001) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 27,577
(2005) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/0-387-27255-0_9 · Cited by 20,133
Specification Tests in Econometrics
Hausman, J. A. (1978) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913827 · Cited by 18,820
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
Baltagi, B. H. (2021) · Springer Texts in Business and Economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53953-5 · Cited by 15,104
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Mueller, C. W., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074955 · Cited by 14,120
Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790942 · Cited by 13,597
Mixed-Effects Models in Sand S-PLUS
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1 · Cited by 11,187
Cited by
Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis
Veroniki, A. A., Jackson, D., Viechtbauer, W., Bender, R., Bowden, J., Knapp, G., Kuss, O., Higgins, J. P., Langan, D., & Salanti, G. (2016) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1164 · Cited by 1,685
Hubbard (2010) · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181caeb90 · Cited by 1,139
The Effect of Small Sample Size on Two-Level Model Estimates: A Review and Illustration
McNeish, D. M., & Stapleton, L. M. (2016) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x · Cited by 715
Social Participation and Depression in Old Age: A Fixed-Effects Analysis in 10 European Countries
Croezen, S., Avendano, M., Burdorf, A., & van Lenthe, F. J. (2015) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwv015 · Cited by 305
McNeish, D. M., & Harring, J. R. (2017) · Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · doi:10.1080/03610918.2014.983648 · Cited by 90
Metadata
- Authors
- Gardiner, J. C., Luo, Z., & Roman, L. A.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-11-14
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 221-239
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2003750542
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 63
- FWCI
- 7.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fixed effects, random effects and GEE: What are the differences? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.3478
- The paper
- Gardiner, J. C., Luo, Z., & Roman, L. A. (2009). Fixed effects, random effects and GEE: What are the differences? Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3478
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
