Skip to Main Content
493
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
Altmetric

Articles

New Recommendations on the Use of R-Squared Differences in Multilevel Model Comparisons

Published online: 27 Sep 2019
 
Translator disclaimer

Abstract

When comparing multilevel models (MLMs) differing in fixed and/or random effects, researchers have had continuing interest in using R-squared differences to communicate effect size and importance of included terms. However, there has been longstanding confusion regarding which R-squared difference measures should be used for which kind of MLM comparisons. Furthermore, several limitations of recent studies on R-squared differences in MLM have led to misleading or incomplete recommendations for practice. These limitations include computing measures that are by definition incapable of detecting a particular type of added term, considering only a subset of the broader class of available R-squared difference measures, and incorrectly defining what a given R-squared difference measure quantifies. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate and resolve these issues. To do so, we define a more general set of total, within-cluster, and between-cluster R-squared difference measures than previously considered in MLM comparisons and give researchers concrete step-by-step procedures for identifying which measure is relevant to which model comparison. We supply simulated and analytic demonstrations of limitations of previous MLM studies on R-squared differences and show how application of our step-by-step procedures and general set of measures overcomes each. Additionally, we provide and illustrate graphical tools and software allowing researchers to automatically compute and visualize our set of measures in an integrated manner. We conclude with recommendations, as well as extensions involving (a) how our framework relates to and can be used to obtain pseudo-R-squareds, and (b) how our framework can accommodate both simultaneous and hierarchical model-building approaches.

Article information

Conflict of interest disclosures. Each author signed a form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No authors reported any financial or other conflicts of interest in relation to the work described.

Ethical principles. The authors affirm having followed professional ethical guidelines in preparing this work. These guidelines include obtaining informed consent from human participants, maintaining ethical treatment and respect for the rights of human or animal participants, and ensuring the privacy of participants and their data, such as ensuring that individual participants cannot be identified in reported results or from publicly available original or archival data.

Funding. This work was not supported by a grant.

Role of the funders/sponsors. None of the funders or sponsors of this research had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Kristopher Preacher, Sun-Joo Cho, and Andrew Tomarken for their comments on prior versions of this manuscript. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors alone, and endorsement by the authors’ institutions is not intended and should not be inferred.

Login options

Purchase * Save for later
Online

Article Purchase 24 hours to view or download: USD 44.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase 30 days to view or download: USD 261.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable