Cited by 107Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Using cluster bootstrapping to analyze nested data with a few clusters

Open access
Huang, Francis L.·2018·Educational and Psychological Measurement

Abstract

Cluster randomized trials involving participants nested within intact treatment and control groups are commonly performed in various educational, psychological, and biomedical studies. However, recruiting and retaining intact groups present various practical, financial, and logistical challenges to evaluators and often, cluster randomized trials are performed with a low number of clusters (~20 groups). Although multilevel models are often used to analyze nested data, researchers may be concerned of potentially biased results due to having only a few groups under study. Cluster bootstrapping has been suggested as an alternative procedure when analyzing clustered data though it has seen very little use in educational and psychological studies. Using a Monte Carlo simulation that varied the number of clusters, average cluster size, and intraclass correlations, we compared standard errors using cluster bootstrapping with those derived using ordinary least squares regression and multilevel models. Results indicate that cluster bootstrapping, though more computationally demanding, can be used as an alternative procedure for the analysis of clustered data when treatment effects at the group level are of primary interest. Supplementary material showing how to perform cluster bootstrapped regressions using R is also provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0013164416678980

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Bell R., 2002, Survey Methodology, 28, 169
  2. Kish L., 1965, Survey sampling
  3. Meijer E., 1998, Assumptions, robustness, and estimation methods in multivariate modeling, 35
  4. Mundfrom D. J., 2001, Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 27, 3
  5. Roberts J., 2004, Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 30, 23
  6. Snijders T., 2012, Multilevel analysis
  7. Spybrook J., 2011, Optimal design plus empirical evidence: Documentation for the “Optimal Design” software
  8. StataCorp, 2015, Stata statistical software: Release 14

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, F. L.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Huang, Francis L.
Venue
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Published
2016-11-24
Volume
78
Issue
2
Pages
297-318
ISSN
  • 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3888
OpenAlex
W2554437640
Cited by
107
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational and Psychological Measurement (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
small number of clusters, nested data, multilevel models, standard errors, intraclass correlation coefficient, cluster size

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