5
$\begingroup$

I'm using xtmixed in Stata to test a Hierarchical Linear Model. My problem is that variance at level 2 is about 4% of the total variance. So most of the variance is at level 1 and the intraclass correlation coefficient is 4%.

In other studies (different fields) I see much higher intraclass correlation coefficients (30-50%). Is there a threshold for a multilevel model to make sense? Or can I publish my results just showing the 4% (and its reduction when adding predictors to the empty model)?

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

John B. Nezlek argues that ICC should not be a ground for justifying decisions on multilevel models, because it's values could be misleading. In his article he gives a synthetic example of varying within-group relationships when intraclass correlations are 0 (attached below). So some, like Nezlek, would say that this is not a problem.

enter image description here

See: Nezlek, J.B. (2008). An Introduction to Multilevel Modeling for Social and Personality Psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2): 842–860.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I have never seen this paper before but I totally agree with this advice. $\endgroup$ – Jake Westfall Nov 26 '14 at 17:41
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! So is it ok to publish a model where I start from a 0.5% ICC. Then I add some predictors (lvl1) reducing of 25% the variance at level 1 and just one predictor at lvl2 reducing the variance at level 2 of 100%. Predictors are significant. But does it make sense to add the one predictor at level 2 in this case (reducing the variance of 100%)? Should I use the Cohen's f2 to estimate the effect size? $\endgroup$ – Forinstance Dec 2 '14 at 10:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.