IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0146721.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing Clustered Data: Why and How to Account for Multiple Observations Nested within a Study Participant?

Author

Listed:
  • Erika L Moen
  • Catherine J Fricano-Kugler
  • Bryan W Luikart
  • A James O’Malley

Abstract

A conventional study design among medical and biological experimentalists involves collecting multiple measurements from a study subject. For example, experiments utilizing mouse models in neuroscience often involve collecting multiple neuron measurements per mouse to increase the number of observations without requiring a large number of mice. This leads to a form of statistical dependence referred to as clustering. Inappropriate analyses of clustered data have resulted in several recent critiques of neuroscience research that suggest the bar for statistical analyses within the field is set too low. We compare naïve analytical approaches to marginal, fixed-effect, and mixed-effect models and provide guidelines for when each of these models is most appropriate based on study design. We demonstrate the influence of clustering on a between-mouse treatment effect, a within-mouse treatment effect, and an interaction effect between the two. Our analyses demonstrate that these statistical approaches can give substantially different results, primarily when the analyses include a between-mouse treatment effect. In a novel analysis from a neuroscience perspective, we also refine the mixed-effect approach through the inclusion of an aggregate mouse-level counterpart to a within-mouse (neuron level) treatment as an additional predictor by adapting an advanced modeling technique that has been used in social science research and show that this yields more informative results. Based on these findings, we emphasize the importance of appropriate analyses of clustered data, and we aim for this work to serve as a resource for when one is deciding which approach will work best for a given study.

Suggested Citation

  • Erika L Moen & Catherine J Fricano-Kugler & Bryan W Luikart & A James O’Malley, 2016. "Analyzing Clustered Data: Why and How to Account for Multiple Observations Nested within a Study Participant?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146721
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146721
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146721
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146721&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0146721?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McNabb, Carolyn Beth & Murayama, Kou, 2021. "Unnecessary reliance on multilevel modelling to analyse nested data in neuroscience: When a traditional summary-statistics approach suffices," OSF Preprints h4s9f, Center for Open Science.
    2. Anesu Gelfand Kuhudzai & Guido Van Hal & Stefan Van Dongen & Muhammad Ehsanul Hoque, 2022. "Modelling of South African Hypertension: Application of Panel Quantile Regression," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-10, May.
    3. Shahin Davoudpour, 2024. "Superficial Allies: The Role of Legal Inclusion and Social Obedience in Stigma Processes," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 29(1), pages 101-119, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146721. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.