The Fixed Versus Random Effects Debate and How It Relates to Centering in Multilevel Modeling

Ellen L. Hamaker*, Bengt Muthén

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In many disciplines researchers use longitudinal panel data to investigate the potentially causal relationship between 2 variables. However, the conventions and concerns vary widely across disciplines. Here we focus on 2 concerns, that is: (a) the concern about random effects versus fixed effects, which is central in the (micro)econometrics/sociology literature; and (b) the concern about grand mean versus group (or person) mean centering, which is central in the multilevel literature associated with disciplines like psychology and educational sciences. We show that these 2 concerns are actually addressing the same underlying issue. We discuss diverse modeling methods based on either multilevel regression modeling with the data in long format, or structural equation modeling with the data in wide format, and compare these approaches with simulated data. We extend the multilevel model with random slopes and discuss the consequences of this. Subsequently, we provide guidelines on how to choose between the diverse modeling options. We illustrate the use of these guidelines with an empirical example based on intensive longitudinal data, in which we consider both a time-varying and a time-invariant covariate.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)365-379
JournalPsychological Methods
Volume25
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2019

Keywords

  • Centering
  • Fixed effects
  • Multilevel analysis
  • Random effects
  • Within-between distinction

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Fixed Versus Random Effects Debate and How It Relates to Centering in Multilevel Modeling'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this