Home » Countries » India » Multilevel modeling in DHS-Sri Lanka (DHS Sri Lanka)
Multilevel modeling in DHS-Sri Lanka [message #16206] |
Sat, 24 November 2018 15:52 |
dga1n@soton.ac.uk
Messages: 9 Registered: March 2018 Location: United Kingdom
|
Member |
|
|
Dear DHS specialists,
For the first time as I have noticed, I am doing Multilevel analysis on DHS-2016 Sri lanka. This data is country specific and the codes seem different from the standard way. . Like the other DHS datasets I could not see variable called hv021 (primary sampling unit) but there is variable called cluster number, so I am using this as my PSU, without doing any alterations.
My questions are
1. I am using xtmelogit low_birth_wt , || QACLUST :, covariance(independent) STATA command which is low birth weight is a binary variables and cluster as PSU. Is this correct?
2. For null model I used the above command, which shows ICC of 7%..which does not show significant variance. Hence I used household ID as a next level.xtmelogit low_birth_wt , || hhid, which shows the ICC of 50%.
I need to know whether my path is correct and the variables I am using are correct. It is extremely hard to deal with different variables.
Kindy help me to sort out this.
Thanks in advance
Gaya
gayathri
[Updated on: Sat, 24 November 2018 15:53] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Multilevel modeling in DHS-Sri Lanka [message #16224 is a reply to message #16222] |
Wed, 28 November 2018 06:03 |
dga1n@soton.ac.uk
Messages: 9 Registered: March 2018 Location: United Kingdom
|
Member |
|
|
Dear Dr. Tom,
Many thanks for your reply. DHS in Sri Lanka has done in 2016 and here is the link for the report.
http://www.statistics.gov.lk/page.asp?page=Health
I have received the the data from the Department of Census in Sri Lanka. So it seems that most of the respondents are limited to 1, so the HH level is not meaningful to use.
When I use cluster as my PSU, my ICC shows only 7% in null model and it further decreases when adding covariates.Does this still valid to report in a DHS.
Kindly let me know your opinion on this.
Thanks
gayathri
[Updated on: Wed, 28 November 2018 06:04] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Multilevel modeling in DHS-Sri Lanka [message #16652 is a reply to message #16310] |
Tue, 12 February 2019 11:21 |
dga1n@soton.ac.uk
Messages: 9 Registered: March 2018 Location: United Kingdom
|
Member |
|
|
Dear DHS specialists,
I have some concerns regarding multilevel models. Since I have very low cluster effect (ICC:0.077) I used mother level as my second level..So since mothers are nested in households, it is correct to use mother ID as a second level or? instead of mother can we use Household level..
2. DO I have to use xtmelogit binary_bw , || qa cluster: || mother ID/ Household ID :, covariance(independent) (three level model)
OR Do I need to consider only two levels xtmelogit binary_bw , || mother ID/household ID :, covariance(independent), ignoring the cluster since the cluster variance is low?
Kindly clarify this for me.. Thanks
gayathri
[Updated on: Fri, 15 February 2019 05:24] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Multilevel modeling in DHS-Sri Lanka [message #16711 is a reply to message #16652] |
Fri, 22 February 2019 13:37 |
Bridgette-DHS
Messages: 3199 Registered: February 2013
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Following is a response from Senior DHS Specialist, Tom Pullum:
Decisions such as this are at the discretion of the researcher, and can vary from one country to another, and are not something for which we maintain a rule book. The adjustment for clustering by PSU basically comes from the survey design. We always recommend including that adjustment in svyset, which is equivalent to including it as level 2 in a hierarchical model. I am surprised that the ICC is so low in this survey.
You could look at this as an empirical matter, I suppose, and let either the mother or the household be the level 2 unit if they have a higher ICC than the PSU does. Ideally, or conceptually, I think of a hierarchy of children/mothers/households/PSUs, and, but (a) methods to include all levels are complex and (b) the impact, which is limited to the standard errors of the coefficients, can be small.
So yes, in my opinion at least, if you find a higher ICC at the level of the mother or the household than at the level of the PSU, and you are limited to a two-level model, you would be justified in placing level 2 where it would have the largest effect.
Also there is a cumulative nature to these effects. For example, if you include a mother-level adjustment, you will definitely account for most of a household-level ICC and possibly for most of a PSU-level ICC.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 21 22:00:12 Coordinated Universal Time 2024
|