5
$\begingroup$

I am trying to use a multi level model for a study where participants take part in 3 separate sessions where they complete a cognitive task and I measure reaction time. During each session, they complete 3 blocks of the task, so I have 3 measurements per session. Participants receive a different treatment condition each session: Placebo A, Drug B, and Drug C. It is a Latin Square design, and order is counter balanced to 6 orders: ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA. There are several participants that received each order, but it isn't perfectly balanced (i.e. some orders have 9 participants, others have 12, others have somewhere in between). We had a washout period that was selected so there wouldn't be a carryover effect.

I want to know whether there is an effect of treatment condition on reaction time. One problem that I am having trouble accounting for is the fact that there is a large session effect. The version of the task they completed during session 2 has a reaction time that is much lower than the reaction time during sessions 1 and 3. I initially had planned to analyze using RM ANOVA, but when I was unblinded, I became aware of the session effect which has made it difficult to isolate whether a treatment effect is present because it instead picks up on the within-subjects session*treatment interaction.

I have been trying to learn about multi level modeling as I have heard it is better able to handle this. However, with my level of understanding, I am unsure whether I am on the right track. I have read many helpful answers on the site, but am concerned my limited understanding that I am making an obvious mistake or misunderstanding what the models I made are doing. I do not care about session order effect--only want to account for it so I can isolate the within-subjects effect of treatment.

Currently, I believe the following is capturing the simplest version what I want, which based on my understanding should be what I go with unless I have good reason to change to something more complex. Is this correct?
model1 <- lmer(formula=RT ~ Condition + (1|participant) + (1|session) + (1|Block), data=data)

I also considered whether this may be the right approach--if block should be nested in participant. model2 <- lmer(formula=RT ~ Condition + (1|Block/participant) + (1|session), data=data, na.action=na.exclude)

Based on some reading, I wondered if I need to include session as a fixed factor. But again, I'm really not interested in it and am just trying to account for that session 2 issue. One thing that confuses me about this model is that I have convergence issues if I try to add condition or session as a random effect here. This has been one clue that I have a fundamental misunderstanding.

model3 <- lmer(formula=RT ~ Condition*session + (1|Block/participant), data=data, na.action=na.exclude)

From reading this... Crossed vs nested random effects: how do they differ and how are they specified correctly in lme4?

I also considered whether this was the proper way. Thus, I keep going back and forth on the structure the random effect is capturing, and whether I need sometime like this instead. But, if I need to specify that blocks are nested in person, then this doesn't converge. model4_fit <- lmer(formula= RT ~ Condition + (1|participant/Condition) + (1|session) + (1|Block), data=data)

I'm also considering whether all of these are wrong and I need to fit a multiple membership model as in here https://github.com/jvparidon/lmerMultiMember as each participant completes 3 sessions and 3 treatment conditions.

Thank you so much for any help anyone is willing to provide.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Note that:

model1 <- lmer(formula=RT ~ Condition + (1|participant) + (1|session) + (1|Block), data=data)

and

model2 <- lmer(formula=RT ~ Condition + (1|Block/participant) + (1|session), data=data, na.action=na.exclude)

are the same model, depending on how the data are coded, as explained in the first link in the OP.

I'm also considering whether all of these are wrong and I need to fit a multiple membership model

I don't see any multiple membership with this design, unless I have not understood the OP

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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