The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Should I Use Fixed or Random Effects?
Abstract
Empirical analyses in social science frequently confront quantitative data that are clustered or grouped. To account for group-level variation and improve model fit, researchers will commonly specify either a fixed- or random-effects model. But current advice on which approach should be preferred, and under what conditions, remains vague and sometimes contradictory. This study performs a series of Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the total error due to bias and variance in the inferences of each model, for typical sizes and types of datasets encountered in applied research. The results offer a typology of dataset characteristics to help researchers choose a preferred model.
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
Specification Tests in Econometrics
Hausman, J. A. (1978) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913827 · Cited by 18,820
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data
Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2082979 · Cited by 6,840
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 · Cited by 5,051
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- 10.1093/pan/mpl012 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/pan/mpp004 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/CBO9780511790928 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1214/009053604000001048 · DOI · Paper page
- Gelman, 2007, Data Analysis Using Regression and Multi-level/Hierarchical Models
- Greene, 2012, Econometric Analysis, Seventh Edition
- Kennedy, 2003, A Guide to Econometrics
- 10.4135/9781849209366 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/pan/mpm002 · DOI · Paper page
- Robinson, 1998, Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, 6, 4713
- Wooldridge, 2010, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data
- 10.1093/pan/mpr008 · DOI
Cited by
Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice
Bell, A., Fairbrother, M., & Jones, K. (2019) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-018-0802-x · Cited by 1,085
Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature18315 · Cited by 594
Reducing child undernutrition: past drivers and priorities for the post- MDG Era
Smith, L. C., & Haddad, L. (2015) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.014 · Cited by 499
Can the International Criminal Court Deter Atrocity?
Jo, H., & Simmons, B. A. (2016) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818316000114 · Cited by 370
The relationship between affective polarization and democratic backsliding: comparative evidence
Orhan, Y. E. (2022) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2021.2008912 · Cited by 198
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, T. S., & Linzer, D. A.
- Venue
- Political Science Research and Methods
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2014-11-21
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 399-408
- ISSN
- 2049-8470 (ISSN-L)
- 2049-8489
- OpenAlex
- W2138432709
- Cited by
- 758
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 138.52
- 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: Should I Use Fixed or Random Effects? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/psrm.2014.32
- The paper
- Clark, T. S., & Linzer, D. A. (2015). Should I Use Fixed or Random Effects? Political Science Research and Methods. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.32
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.
