↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Estimation Procedures for Multilevel AR(1) Models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Estimation Procedures for Multilevel AR(1) Models
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00486
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanja Krone, Casper J. Albers, Marieke E. Timmerman

Abstract

To estimate a time series model for multiple individuals, a multilevel model may be used. In this paper we compare two estimation methods for the autocorrelation in Multilevel AR(1) models, namely Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) and Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Furthermore, we examine the difference between modeling fixed and random individual parameters. To this end, we perform a simulation study with a fully crossed design, in which we vary the length of the time series (10 or 25), the number of individuals per sample (10 or 25), the mean of the autocorrelation (-0.6 to 0.6 inclusive, in steps of 0.3) and the standard deviation of the autocorrelation (0.25 or 0.40). We found that the random estimators of the population autocorrelation show less bias and higher power, compared to the fixed estimators. As expected, the random estimators profit strongly from a higher number of individuals, while this effect is small for the fixed estimators. The fixed estimators profit slightly more from a higher number of time points than the random estimators. When possible, random estimation is preferred to fixed estimation. The difference between MLE and Bayesian estimation is nearly negligible. The Bayesian estimation shows a smaller bias, but MLE shows a smaller variability (i.e., standard deviation of the parameter estimates). Finally, better results are found for a higher number of individuals and time points, and for a lower individual variability of the autocorrelation. The effect of the size of the autocorrelation differs between outcome measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Other 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 36%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 9%
Mathematics 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 4 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,842,329
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,125
of 29,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,046
of 301,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#287
of 442 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,894 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 442 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.