A comparison of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo methods in a multilevel scenario

References

• Archer, K., S. Lemeshow, and D. Hosmer. 2007. Goodness-of-fit tests for logistic regression models when data are collected using a complex sampling design. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonaccorso, G. 2017. Machine learning algorithms. Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, W. 1998. Applying MCMC methods to multi-level models. University of Bath.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, W., C. Charlton, and J. Rasbash. 2014. MCMC estimation in MLwiN Version 2.31. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, W., C. Charlton, and J. Rasbash. 2015. MCMC estimation in MLwiN, Version 2.32. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, W., C. Charlton, and J. Rasbash. 2017. MCMC estimation in MLwiN, Version 3.01. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, W., and Draper. D. 2006. A comparison of Bayesian and likelihood-based methods for fitting multilevel models. Bayesian Analysis 1 (3):473–514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelhoa, R., P. Infante, and M. N. Santos. 2013. Application of Generalized Linear Models and Generalized Estimation Equations to model at-haulback mortality of blue sharks captured in a pelagic longline fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. Fisheries Research 145:66–75.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond, A. J., S. Y. W. Ho, M. J. Phillips, and A. Rambaut. 2006. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biology 4 (5):e88. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elvira, V., L. Martino, and P. Christian. 2018. Rethinking the Effective Sample Size, Computer Science, Mathematics. arXiv:1809.04129. USA: Cornell University.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerland, M. W., D. W. Hosmer, and A. M. Bofin. 2008. Multinomial goodness-of-fit tests for logistic regression models. Statistics in Medicine 27 (21):4238–53. doi:10.1002/sim.3202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flegal, J., M. Haran, and G. Jones. 2008. Markov chain Monte Carlo: Can We Trust the Third Significant Figure. Statistical Science 23 (2):250–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francois, O., and G. Laval. 2018. Deviance Information Criteria for Model Selection in Approximate Bayesian Computation. University Joseph Fourier Grenoble, Centre National de la Research Scientific, TIMC-IMAG UMR 5525, 38042 Grenoble, France.
   Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., J. Carlin, H. Stern, and D. Rubin. 2004. Bayesian Data Analysis. Texts in Statistical Science, 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Geyer, C. 1992. Practical Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Statistical Science 7 (4):473–83. doi:10.1214/ss/1177011137.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, H. 1999. Multilevel statistical models. Multilevel models project. London: Institute of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, H. 2011. Multilevel statistical models (4th ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd
   Google Scholar
• Guo, G., and H. Zhao. 2000. Multilevel modeling for binary data. Annual Review of Sociology 26 (1):441–62. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosmer, D. W., and S. Lemesbow. 1980. Goodness of fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model. Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods 9 (10):1043–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosmer, D. W., S. Lemeshow, and R. X. Sturdivant. 2013. Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hox, J. J. 2010. Multilevel analysis- techiniques and applications. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hox, J. J., R. van de Schoot, and S. Matthijsse. 2012. How few countries will do? Comparative survey analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Survey Research Methods 6 (2):87–93. doi:10.18148/srm/2012.v6i2.5033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, F. 2016. Alternatives to multilevel modeling for the analysis of clustered data. The Journal of Experimental Education 84 (1):175–96. doi:10.1080/00220973.2014.952397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, J. E. 1991. Estimation of models with variable coefficients. Political Analysis 3:27–49. doi:10.1093/pan/3.1.27.
   Google Scholar
• Kadane, J. B. 2015. Bayesian methods for prevention research. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research 16 (7):1017–25. Octdoi:10.1007/s11121-014-0531-x. PMID: 25468407
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kref, I., and J. de Leeuw. 1998. Introducing multilevel modeling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Liang, K., and S. Zeger. 1986. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73 (1):13–22. doi:10.1093/biomet/73.1.13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsitz, S., G. Fitzmaurice, and G. Molenberghs. 1996. Goodness-of-fit tests for ordinal response regression models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics) 45 (2):175–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, J., D. J. Nordman, and W. Meeker. 2014. The Number of MCMC draws needed to compute bayesian credible bounds. Statistics, Iowa State University, Digital Repository, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Maas, C., and J. Hox. 2005. Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling Methodology. Methodology 1 (3):86–92. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86.
   Google Scholar
• McNeish, D. M., and L. M. Stapleton. 2016. The effect of small sample size on two-level model estimates: A review and illustration. Educational Psychology Review 28 (2):295–314. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pathirathne, L., and M. R. Sooriyarachchi. 2019. Factors affecting life expectancy: A global perspective. Journal of Environment Protection and Sustainable Development 5 (1):4–21.
   Google Scholar
• Perera, A., M. R. Sooriyarachchi, and S. Wickramasuriya. 2016. A goodness of fit test for the multilevel logistic model. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation 45 (2):643–59. doi:10.1080/03610918.2013.868906.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto, I. V., and M. R. Sooriyarachchi. 2019. Comparison of methods of estimation for use in goodness of fit tests for binary multilevel models. International Science Index 148, International Journal of Mathematical, Computational, Physical, Electrical and Computer Engineering 13 (4):68– 73.
   Google Scholar
• Raftery, A., and S. Lewis. 1992. How many iterations in the Gibbs sampler?. In Bayesian Statistics 4, eds. J. M. Bernado, J. O. Berger, A. P. Dawid and A. F. M. Smith, pp. 763–73. doi:10.21236/ada640705
   Google Scholar
• Rasbash, J., F. Steele, W. Browne, and H. Goldstein. 2017. A user’s guide to MLwiN, Version 3.00. Centre for multilevel modelling. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Rasbash, J., Steele, F. Browne, and W. Goldstein. 2009. A User's Guide to MLwiN, Version 2.10. Centre for multilevel modelling. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Rasbash, J., Steele, F. Browne, and W. Goldstein. 2012. A User's Guide to MLwiN,Version 2.26. Centre for Multilevel Modelling. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S., and A. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis Methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, V. 2019. Convergence diagnostics for Markov chain Monte Carlo. Ames: Department of Statistics, Iowa state University Ames.
   Google Scholar
• Snijders, T., and R. Bosker. 2012. Multilevel Analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, M., and B. Jones. 2002. Modeling Multilevel Data Structures. American Journal of Political Science 46 (1):218. doi:10.2307/3088424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vehtari, A., Gelman, A. Simpson, B. Carpenter, and P.-C. Bürkner. 2021. Rank-Normalization, Folding, and Localization: An Improved R for Assessing Convergence of MCMC. Bayesian Analysis 16 (2):667–718. doi:10.1214/20-BA1221
   Google Scholar