Sampling weights in multilevel modelling: an investigation using PISA sampling structures

Abstract Background Standard methods for analysing data from large-scale assessments (LSA) cannot merely be adopted if hierarchical (or multilevel) regression modelling should be applied. Currently various approaches exist; they all follow generally a design-based model of estimation using the pseud...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Julia Mang, Helmut Küchenhoff, Sabine Meinck, Manfred Prenzel
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SpringerOpen 2021-03-01
Series:Large-scale Assessments in Education
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-021-00099-0
id doaj-df259f0a92334d83ade5a0a6f70274d6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-df259f0a92334d83ade5a0a6f70274d62021-03-28T11:03:45ZengSpringerOpenLarge-scale Assessments in Education2196-07392021-03-019113910.1186/s40536-021-00099-0Sampling weights in multilevel modelling: an investigation using PISA sampling structuresJulia Mang0Helmut Küchenhoff1Sabine Meinck2Manfred Prenzel3TUM School of Education, Centre for International Student Assessment (ZIB), Technical University of Munich (TUM)Department of Statistics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenInternational Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)Centre for Teacher Education, University of ViennaAbstract Background Standard methods for analysing data from large-scale assessments (LSA) cannot merely be adopted if hierarchical (or multilevel) regression modelling should be applied. Currently various approaches exist; they all follow generally a design-based model of estimation using the pseudo maximum likelihood method and adjusted weights for the corresponding hierarchies. Specifically, several different approaches to using and scaling sampling weights in hierarchical models are promoted, yet no study has compared them to provide evidence of which method performs best and therefore should be preferred. Furthermore, different software programs implement different estimation algorithms, leading to different results. Objective and method In this study, we determine based on a simulation, the estimation procedure showing the smallest distortion to the actual population features. We consider different estimation, optimization and acceleration methods, and different approaches on using sampling weights. Three scenarios have been simulated using the statistical program R. The analyses have been performed with two software packages for hierarchical modelling of LSA data, namely Mplus and SAS. Results and conclusions The simulation results revealed three weighting approaches performing best in retrieving the true population parameters. One of them implies using only level two weights (here: final school weights) and is because of its simple implementation the most favourable one. This finding should provide a clear recommendation to researchers for using weights in multilevel modelling (MLM) when analysing LSA data, or data with a similar structure. Further, we found only little differences in the performance and default settings of the software programs used, with the software package Mplus providing slightly more precise estimates. Different algorithm starting settings or different accelerating methods for optimization could cause these distinctions. However, it should be emphasized that with the recommended weighting approach, both software packages perform equally well. Finally, two scaling techniques for student weights have been investigated. They provide both nearly identical results. We use data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 to illustrate the practical importance and relevance of weighting in analysing large-scale assessment data with hierarchical models.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-021-00099-0Sampling weightsHierarchical models (HLM)Multilevel models (MLM)Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)Large-scale assessment (LSA)Scaling of sampling weights
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Julia Mang
Helmut Küchenhoff
Sabine Meinck
Manfred Prenzel
spellingShingle Julia Mang
Helmut Küchenhoff
Sabine Meinck
Manfred Prenzel
Sampling weights in multilevel modelling: an investigation using PISA sampling structures
Large-scale Assessments in Education
Sampling weights
Hierarchical models (HLM)
Multilevel models (MLM)
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
Large-scale assessment (LSA)
Scaling of sampling weights
author_facet Julia Mang
Helmut Küchenhoff
Sabine Meinck
Manfred Prenzel
author_sort Julia Mang
title Sampling weights in multilevel modelling: an investigation using PISA sampling structures
title_short Sampling weights in multilevel modelling: an investigation using PISA sampling structures
title_full Sampling weights in multilevel modelling: an investigation using PISA sampling structures
title_fullStr Sampling weights in multilevel modelling: an investigation using PISA sampling structures
title_full_unstemmed Sampling weights in multilevel modelling: an investigation using PISA sampling structures
title_sort sampling weights in multilevel modelling: an investigation using pisa sampling structures
publisher SpringerOpen
series Large-scale Assessments in Education
issn 2196-0739
publishDate 2021-03-01
description Abstract Background Standard methods for analysing data from large-scale assessments (LSA) cannot merely be adopted if hierarchical (or multilevel) regression modelling should be applied. Currently various approaches exist; they all follow generally a design-based model of estimation using the pseudo maximum likelihood method and adjusted weights for the corresponding hierarchies. Specifically, several different approaches to using and scaling sampling weights in hierarchical models are promoted, yet no study has compared them to provide evidence of which method performs best and therefore should be preferred. Furthermore, different software programs implement different estimation algorithms, leading to different results. Objective and method In this study, we determine based on a simulation, the estimation procedure showing the smallest distortion to the actual population features. We consider different estimation, optimization and acceleration methods, and different approaches on using sampling weights. Three scenarios have been simulated using the statistical program R. The analyses have been performed with two software packages for hierarchical modelling of LSA data, namely Mplus and SAS. Results and conclusions The simulation results revealed three weighting approaches performing best in retrieving the true population parameters. One of them implies using only level two weights (here: final school weights) and is because of its simple implementation the most favourable one. This finding should provide a clear recommendation to researchers for using weights in multilevel modelling (MLM) when analysing LSA data, or data with a similar structure. Further, we found only little differences in the performance and default settings of the software programs used, with the software package Mplus providing slightly more precise estimates. Different algorithm starting settings or different accelerating methods for optimization could cause these distinctions. However, it should be emphasized that with the recommended weighting approach, both software packages perform equally well. Finally, two scaling techniques for student weights have been investigated. They provide both nearly identical results. We use data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 to illustrate the practical importance and relevance of weighting in analysing large-scale assessment data with hierarchical models.
topic Sampling weights
Hierarchical models (HLM)
Multilevel models (MLM)
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
Large-scale assessment (LSA)
Scaling of sampling weights
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-021-00099-0
work_keys_str_mv AT juliamang samplingweightsinmultilevelmodellinganinvestigationusingpisasamplingstructures
AT helmutkuchenhoff samplingweightsinmultilevelmodellinganinvestigationusingpisasamplingstructures
AT sabinemeinck samplingweightsinmultilevelmodellinganinvestigationusingpisasamplingstructures
AT manfredprenzel samplingweightsinmultilevelmodellinganinvestigationusingpisasamplingstructures
_version_ 1724200538255392768