In an earlier post, we walked through method for plotting the fitted lines from models fit with multiply-imputed data. In this post, we’ll discuss another neglected topic: How might one compute standardized regression coefficients from models fit with multiply-imputed data?
This is a follow-up to my earlier post, Notes on the Bayesian cumulative probit. This time, the topic we’re addressing is: After you fit a full multilevel Bayesian cumulative probit model of several Likert-type items from a multi-item questionnaire, how can you use the model to compute an effect size in the sum-score metric?
I’ve been thinking a lot about how to analyze pre/post control group designs, lately. Happily, others have thought a lot about this topic, too. The goal of this post is to introduce the change-score and ANCOVA models, introduce their multilevel-model counterparts, and compare their behavior in a couple quick simulation studies. Spoiler alert: The multilevel variant of the ANCOVA model is the winner.
Say you have 2-timepoint RCT, where participants received either treatment or control. Even in the best of scenarios, you’ll probably have some dropout in those post-treatment data. To get the full benefit of your data, you can use one-step Bayesian imputation when you compute your effect sizes. In this post, I’ll show you how.
This post is the second of a two-part series. In the first post, we explored how one might compute an effect size for two-group experimental data with only 2 time points. In this second post, we fulfill our goal to show how to generalize this framework to experimental data collected over 3+ time points. The data and overall framework come from Feingold (2009).
The purpose of this series is to show how to compute a Cohen’s-d type effect size when you have longitudinal data on 3+ time points for two experimental groups. In this first post, we’ll warm up with the basics. In the second post, we’ll get down to business. The data and overall framework come from Feingold (2009).