The danger of conflating level‐specific effects of control variables when primary interest lies in level‐2 effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the multilevel modelling literature, methodologists widely acknowledge that a level-1 variable can have distinct within-cluster and between-cluster effects, and that failing to disaggregate these can yield a slope estimate that is an uninterpretable, conflated blend of the two. Methodologists have stated, however, that including conflated slopes of level-1 variables in a model is not problematic if substantive interest lies only in effects of level-2 predictors. Researchers commonly follow this advice and use methods that do not disaggregate effects of level-1 control variables (e.g., grand mean centering) when examining effects of level-2 predictors. The primary purpose of this paper is to show that this is a dangerous practice. When level-specific effects of level-1 variables differ, failing to disaggregate them can severely bias estimation of level-2 predictor slopes. We show mathematically why this is the case and highlight factors that can exacerbate such bias. We corroborate these findings with simulations and present an empirical example, showing how such distortions can severely alter substantive conclusions. We ultimately recommend that simply including the cluster mean of the level-1 variable as a control will alleviate the problem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.146 | 0.464 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".