Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2209.14349

Model Specification in Mixed-Effects Models: A Focus on Random Effects

Keith R. Lohse·Allan J. Kozlowski·Michael J. Strube
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Mixed-effect models are flexible tools for researchers in a myriad of fields, but that flexibility comes at the cost of complexity and if users are not careful in how their model is specified, they could be making faulty inferences from their data. We argue that there is significant confusion around appropriate random effects to be included in a model given the study design, with researchers generally being better at specifying the fixed effects of a model, which map onto to their research hypotheses. To that end, we present an instructive framework for evaluating the random effects of a model in three different situations: (1) longitudinal designs; (2) factorial repeated measures; and (3) when dealing with multiple sources of variance. We provide worked examples with open-access code and data in an online repository. We think this framework will be helpful for students and researchers who are new to mixed effect models, and to reviewers who may have to evaluate a novel model as part of their review.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEstat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Keith R. Lohse, Allan J. Kozlowski, Michael J. Strube. 2023-08-24. Model Specification in Mixed-Effects Models: A Focus on Random Effects. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2209.14349

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Considerations for the Integration of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Data

As clinical decision-making increasingly moves toward individualized and context-specific treatment recommendations, reliance on any single evidence source, randomized or observational, may be insufficient. Principled integration of randomized controlled trials and real-world data, grounded in explicit causal frameworks, offers a path toward evidence that is both internally credible and externally relevant. In this article, we describe distinct objectives for the integration of randomized controlled trials and real-world data and discuss how these objectives shape key design and analytic considerations, illustrating the resulting choices through example estimands. We highlight practical issues that commonly arise in applied settings, including data relevance and curation, cross-source comparability, estimand specification, and sensitivity analysis. We aim for this article to help readers evaluate and implement principled approaches to integrating randomized controlled trials and real-world data in ways that can support more reliable treatment recommendations while maintaining regulatory-grade evidentiary standards.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Validity of MMRM-based hypothesis testing under missing-not-at-random mechanisms

In randomized clinical trials with longitudinal continuous outcomes, missing-not-at-random (MNAR) missingness often motivates conservative alternatives to mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM). Such caution is important for estimation, but estimation and testing need not require identical assumptions. Moreover, overly conservative primary analyses may reduce power, increase required sample size, and raise trial costs. We investigated the validity of MMRM-based testing under the global null of identical longitudinal outcome distributions across groups. Because valid testing minimally requires treatment-effect estimators to converge to the null under the null hypothesis, we investigated sufficient conditions for this property. We introduced a proportional observation condition requiring ratios of observation probabilities relative to a reference group, conditional on the full outcome vector, to be outcome-independent, and showed that, with arbitrary post-baseline visits and monotone missingness, this condition is sufficient for convergence to the null value. The condition allows observation to depend on unobserved outcomes and permits between-group differences in overall observation probabilities through outcome-independent dropout, making it clinically interpretable while accommodating outcome-dependent MNAR missingness. Synthetic and data-based bootstrap simulations showed negligible bias and empirical test sizes near 0.05, including nonmonotone missingness. Thus, MNAR missingness does not by itself imply that a more conservative primary testing procedure is required. This result does not justify treatment-effect estimation under alternatives, which still requires estimand-based interpretation and sensitivity analyses.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Optimized variance estimation under interference and complex experimental designs

Unbiased and consistent variance estimators generally do not exist for design-based treatment effect estimators because experimenters never observe more than one potential outcome for any unit. The problem is exacerbated by interference and complex experimental designs. Experimenters must accept conservative variance estimators in these settings, but they can strive to minimize the conservativeness. In this paper, we show that the task of constructing a minimally conservative variance estimator can be interpreted as an optimization problem that aims to find the lowest estimable upper bound of the true variance given the experimenter's risk preferences and knowledge of the potential outcomes. We characterize the set of admissible bounds in the class of quadratic forms, and we demonstrate that the optimization problem is a convex program for many natural objectives. The resulting variance estimators are guaranteed to be conservative regardless of whether the background knowledge used to construct the bound is correct, but the estimators are less conservative if the provided information is reasonably accurate. Numerical results show that the resulting variance estimators can be considerably less conservative than existing estimators, allowing experimenters to draw more informative inferences about treatment effects.

stat.ME↗