6. The Simultaneous Decision(s) about the Number of Lower- and Higher-Level Classes in Multilevel Latent Class Analysis

Olga Lukočienė · Roberta Varriale · Jeroen Kornelis Vermunt

156 citations0/0 files storedSociological Methodology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference Bayesian Methods and Mixture Models

Abstract

Recently, several types of extensions of the latent class (LC) model have been developed for the analysis of data sets having a multilevel structure. The most popular variant is the multilevel LC model with finite mixture distributions at multiple levels of a hierarchical structure; that is, with LCs for both lower-level units (e.g. individuals, citizens, or patients) and higher-level units (e.g. groups, regions, or hospitals). A problem in the application of this model is that determining the number of LCs is much more complicated than in standard (single-level) LC analysis because it involves multiple, nonindependent decisions. We propose a three-step model-fitting procedure for deciding about the number of higher- and lower-level classes. We also investigate the performance of information criteria (BIC, AIC, CAIC, and AIC3) in the context of multilevel LC analysis, with different types of response variables. A specific difficulty associated with using BIC and CAIC in any type of multilevel analysis is that these measures contain the sample size in their formulae, and we investigate whether this should be the number of groups, the number of individuals, or either the number of groups or individuals depending on whether one has to decide about model features concerning the higher or lower level. The three main conclusions of our simulations studies are that (1) the proposed three-step model-fitting strategy works rather well, (2) the number of higher-level units (K) is the preferred sample size for BIC and CAIC, both for decisions about higher- and lower-level classes, and (3) with categorical indicators, AIC3 and BIC based on the higher-level sample size are the preferred measures for deciding about the number of LCs at both the higher and lower level. With continuous indicators, BIC(K) performs better than AIC3. AIC performs best in very specific situations—namely, with poorly separated classes and categorical indicators.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 156 citations exist upstream.

References

2007Deciding on the Number of Classes in Latent Class Analysis and Growth Mixture Modeling: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study 2002Applied Latent Class Analysis 1989Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis 2007Advances in Latent Variable Mixture Models 2004Latent Class Models 20037. Multilevel Latent Class Models 1984Latent Structure Analysis of a Set of Multidimensional Contingency Tables 1997Model Selection Information Criteria for Non-Nested Latent Class Models

Cited by

2019Modeling individual differences in emotion regulation repertoire in daily life with multilevel latent profile analysis.2017Recommendations on the Sample Sizes for Multilevel Latent Class Models 2020Sustainable development of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises in the European Union: A taxonomy of circular economy practices 2013Multilevel Latent Class Analysis: Parametric and Nonparametric Models 2019Invariance analyses in large-scale studies 2010

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.