Cited by 193Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in EpidemiologySpatial and Panel Data Analysis

Estimating Multilevel Logistic Regression Models When the Number of Clusters is Low: A Comparison of Different Statistical Software Procedures

Open access
Austin, Peter C·2010·The International Journal of Biostatistics

Abstract

Multilevel logistic regression models are increasingly being used to analyze clustered data in medical, public health, epidemiological, and educational research. Procedures for estimating the parameters of such models are available in many statistical software packages. There is currently little evidence on the minimum number of clusters necessary to reliably fit multilevel regression models. We conducted a Monte Carlo study to compare the performance of different statistical software procedures for estimating multilevel logistic regression models when the number of clusters was low. We examined procedures available in BUGS, HLM, R, SAS, and Stata. We found that there were qualitative differences in the performance of different software procedures for estimating multilevel logistic models when the number of clusters was low. Among the likelihood-based procedures, estimation methods based on adaptive Gauss-Hermite approximations to the likelihood (glmer in R and xtlogit in Stata) or adaptive Gaussian quadrature (Proc NLMIXED in SAS) tended to have superior performance for estimating variance components when the number of clusters was small, compared to software procedures based on penalized quasi-likelihood. However, only Bayesian estimation with BUGS allowed for accurate estimation of variance components when there were fewer than 10 clusters. For all statistical software procedures, estimation of variance components tended to be poor when there were only five subjects per cluster, regardless of the number of clusters.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2202/1557-4679.1195

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Because validation studies of a certain prediction model are often sparse, traditional (frequentist) meta-analysis models may suffer from convergence issues and yield unreliable estimates of precision and between-study heterogeneity.

    “Finally, because validation studies of a certain prediction model are often sparse, traditional (frequentist) meta-analysis models may suffer from convergence issues and yield unreliable estimates of precision and between-study heterogeneity.64”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bernardo JM, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Smith AFM), pp. 169-193. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  2. Raudenbush SW (2008). Many small groups. In: Handbook of Multilevel Analysis (editors: de Leeuw J, Meijer E), pp. 207-236. New York, NY: Springer.
  3. The International Journal of Biostatistics, Vol. 6 [2010], Iss. 1, Art. 16 DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1195

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Austin, P. C.
Affiliations
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (CA)
Corresponding author
Austin, Peter C
Venue
The International Journal of Biostatistics
Published
2010-04-22
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
Article 16-Article 16
ISSN
1557-4679 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2093789600
Cited by
193
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The International Journal of Biostatistics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  • Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
  • Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (86508, MOP86508)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
Keywords
multilevel logistic regression, small number of clusters, variance component estimation, statistical software comparison, penalized quasi-likelihood, Bayesian estimation, likelihood estimation, clustered data, Monte Carlo simulation
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, Software, Models, Statistical, Cluster Analysis, Linear Models, Logistic Models

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