Abstract
Linear mixed-effects models have been increasingly used to analyze dependent data in psychological research. Despite their many advantages over ANOVA, critical issues in their analyses remain. Due to increasing random effects and model complexity, estimation computation is demanding, and convergence becomes challenging. Applied users need help choosing appropriate methods to estimate random effects. The present Monte Carlo simulation study investigated the impacts when the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and Bayesian estimation models were misspecified in the estimation. We also compared the performance of Akaike information criterion (AIC) and deviance information criterion (DIC) in model selection. Results showed that models neglecting the existing random effects had inflated Type I errors, unacceptable coverage, and inaccurate R-squared measures of fixed and random effects variation. Furthermore, models with redundant random effects had convergence problems, lower statistical power, and inaccurate R-squared measures for Bayesian estimation. The convergence problem is more severe for REML, while reduced power and inaccurate R-squared measures were more severe for Bayesian estimation. Notably, DIC was better than AIC in identifying the true models (especially for models including person random intercept only), improving convergence rates, and providing more accurate effect size estimates, despite AIC having higher power than DIC with 10 items and the most complicated true model.
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 supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (32200920, 32071091), Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province (2022NSFSC1788).
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 Editor Dr Alberto Maydeu-Olivares, three anonymous reviewers. 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.