Occasionally I encounter discussions of what are called fixed-effects models in econometrics but I haven't seen descriptions of the underlying statistical model. Can anyone point me to a description of these models, in particular a description in terms of a probability distribution of the response? I would be particularly interested in a discussion of how they relate to mixed-effects models as we think of them in lme4 and nlme.
Relationship between mixed-effects models and fixed-effects models
7 messages · Douglas Bates, Phillip Alday, Daniel Lüdecke +1 more
Here's a good primer: McNeish, D., & Kelley, K. (2019). Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: Reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations. *Psychological Methods*, *24*(1), 20. https://www3.nd.edu/~kkelley/publications/articles/McNeish_Kelley_PsychMethods_2019.pdf The challenge in these discussions is that econometricians use fixed effects semi-parametrically, by specifying a *minimal* set of assumptions regarding the conditional mean of the response (given the observed predictors and the cluster-specific intercepts) and dependence structure. Thus, many of the discussions will avoid writing down full probability distributions. Another challenge is that econometricians tend to be worried about confounding and dependence between the distribution of the predictors and the distribution of the cluster-specific intercepts.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 10:14 AM Douglas Bates <dmbates at gmail.com> wrote:
Occasionally I encounter discussions of what are called fixed-effects
models in econometrics but I haven't seen descriptions of the underlying
statistical model. Can anyone point me to a description of these models,
in particular a description in terms of a probability distribution of the
response? I would be particularly interested in a discussion of how they
relate to mixed-effects models as we think of them in lme4 and nlme.
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
If I understand correctly, "fixed effects" in econometrics are simply categorical variables, especially ones with a large number of levels. There are "fixed" in the sense that they are observed at fixed (discrete) levels instead of as continuously. I don't have access to my copy at the moment, but this is discussed in Gelman & Hill (2006). Phillip
On 07/06/2021 10:09, Douglas Bates wrote:
Occasionally I encounter discussions of what are called fixed-effects models in econometrics but I haven't seen descriptions of the underlying statistical model. Can anyone point me to a description of these models, in particular a description in terms of a probability distribution of the response? I would be particularly interested in a discussion of how they relate to mixed-effects models as we think of them in lme4 and nlme. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
Somewhat related to this and what James wrote, in the world of fMRI and other two-stage analyses in psychology and neuroscience, the "fixed effect" vs "random effect" distinction is used in the same sense as in meta-analysis, which lines up more closely with the use in mixed models, i.e. whether or not the individual estimates are treated as observed draws from a random variable in the group-level analysis.
On 07/06/2021 10:27, Phillip Alday wrote:
If I understand correctly, "fixed effects" in econometrics are simply categorical variables, especially ones with a large number of levels. There are "fixed" in the sense that they are observed at fixed (discrete) levels instead of as continuously. I don't have access to my copy at the moment, but this is discussed in Gelman & Hill (2006). Phillip On 07/06/2021 10:09, Douglas Bates wrote:
Occasionally I encounter discussions of what are called fixed-effects models in econometrics but I haven't seen descriptions of the underlying statistical model. Can anyone point me to a description of these models, in particular a description in terms of a probability distribution of the response? I would be particularly interested in a discussion of how they relate to mixed-effects models as we think of them in lme4 and nlme. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
And the relevant page is on Google Books: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Data_Analysis_Using_Regression_and_Multi/lV3DIdV0F9AC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gelman%20hill&pg=PA245&printsec=frontcover This matches up with both my and James' comments.
On 07/06/2021 10:30, Phillip Alday wrote:
Somewhat related to this and what James wrote, in the world of fMRI and other two-stage analyses in psychology and neuroscience, the "fixed effect" vs "random effect" distinction is used in the same sense as in meta-analysis, which lines up more closely with the use in mixed models, i.e. whether or not the individual estimates are treated as observed draws from a random variable in the group-level analysis. On 07/06/2021 10:27, Phillip Alday wrote:
If I understand correctly, "fixed effects" in econometrics are simply categorical variables, especially ones with a large number of levels. There are "fixed" in the sense that they are observed at fixed (discrete) levels instead of as continuously. I don't have access to my copy at the moment, but this is discussed in Gelman & Hill (2006). Phillip On 07/06/2021 10:09, Douglas Bates wrote:
Occasionally I encounter discussions of what are called fixed-effects models in econometrics but I haven't seen descriptions of the underlying statistical model. Can anyone point me to a description of these models, in particular a description in terms of a probability distribution of the response? I would be particularly interested in a discussion of how they relate to mixed-effects models as we think of them in lme4 and nlme. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
I think FE (fixed effects) models are used in particular in panel data or longitudinal data analysis, when time varying predictors are included, e.g. "income". Income has a between-subject effect (we have higher- and lower-income groups) and a within-subject effect (income of person A can increase over time, while it can decrease for person B - no matter, if A or B belong to low- or high-income groups!). The arguments from a FE perspective against mixed models is that you cannot include "income" as predictor, because income has an effect on both individual level (within) and higher levels (between), i.e. it would introduce correlated error terms between the fixed effects and random effects, which violates model assumptions. The solution is now to "demean" the "income" variable and only include the within-effect, i.e. the time varying component in the model. All between effects, and in general all predictors that could be seen as "between" effects (gender, education, ...) have to be omitted from the model. The group-level variation (e.g. "subject", or whatever would be the group factor in mixed models) is included as normal predictor. So, a FE model is a classical linear model, where - Intercept is removed - time-invariant predictors are not allowed to be included - the group-level factor is included as predictor - time-varying predictors are de-meaned (?person-mean centered?, indicating the ?within-subject? effect) However, in particular Bell et al. [1, 2] have shown that the "demeaning" trick also applies to mixed models, so that essentially, mixed models are probably much better for panel data / longitudinal data analysis. You may be interested in this vignette, describing the issue and comparing FE to mixed models: https://easystats.github.io/parameters/articles/demean.html There are some newer developments, like fixed effects individual slope models (package feisr), or the panelr package (fun fact: which uses lme4 to fit flexible models for panel data, so these models are actually mixed models, no classical FE models). Best Daniel 1) Bell, Andrew, Malcolm Fairbrother, and Kelvyn Jones. 2019. ?Fixed and Random Effects Models: Making an Informed Choice.? Quality & Quantity 53: 1051?74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0802-x. 2) Bell, Andrew, and Kelvyn Jones. 2015. ?Explaining Fixed Effects: Random Effects Modeling of Time-Series Cross-Sectional and Panel Data.? Political Science Research and Methods 3 (1): 133?53. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.7. -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: R-sig-mixed-models <r-sig-mixed-models-bounces at r-project.org> Im Auftrag von Douglas Bates Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juni 2021 17:10 An: R-mixed models mailing list <r-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org> Betreff: [R-sig-ME] Relationship between mixed-effects models and fixed-effects models Occasionally I encounter discussions of what are called fixed-effects models in econometrics but I haven't seen descriptions of the underlying statistical model. Can anyone point me to a description of these models, in particular a description in terms of a probability distribution of the response? I would be particularly interested in a discussion of how they relate to mixed-effects models as we think of them in lme4 and nlme. _______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models -- _____________________________________________________________________ Universit?tsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf; K?rperschaft des ?ffentlichen Rechts; Gerichtsstand: Hamburg | www.uke.de Vorstandsmitglieder: Prof. Dr. Burkhard G?ke (Vorsitzender), Joachim Pr?l?, Prof. Dr. Blanche Schwappach-Pignataro, Marya Verdel _____________________________________________________________________ SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE PRINTING
I agree with Daneil's comments. Raudenbush has a very deep article on generalizations of the de-meaning strategy: Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). Adaptive centering with random effects: An alternative to the fixed effects model for studying time-varying treatments in school settings. *Education Finance and Policy*, *4*(4), 468-491. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/6/1063/files/2018/11/AdaptiveCenterRandom-2009-educfinapoli.4.4.468.R-106edfh.pdf
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 2:08 PM Daniel L?decke <d.luedecke at uke.de> wrote:
I think FE (fixed effects) models are used in particular in panel data or longitudinal data analysis, when time varying predictors are included, e.g. "income". Income has a between-subject effect (we have higher- and lower-income groups) and a within-subject effect (income of person A can increase over time, while it can decrease for person B - no matter, if A or B belong to low- or high-income groups!). The arguments from a FE perspective against mixed models is that you cannot include "income" as predictor, because income has an effect on both individual level (within) and higher levels (between), i.e. it would introduce correlated error terms between the fixed effects and random effects, which violates model assumptions. The solution is now to "demean" the "income" variable and only include the within-effect, i.e. the time varying component in the model. All between effects, and in general all predictors that could be seen as "between" effects (gender, education, ...) have to be omitted from the model. The group-level variation (e.g. "subject", or whatever would be the group factor in mixed models) is included as normal predictor. So, a FE model is a classical linear model, where - Intercept is removed - time-invariant predictors are not allowed to be included - the group-level factor is included as predictor - time-varying predictors are de-meaned (?person-mean centered?, indicating the ?within-subject? effect) However, in particular Bell et al. [1, 2] have shown that the "demeaning" trick also applies to mixed models, so that essentially, mixed models are probably much better for panel data / longitudinal data analysis. You may be interested in this vignette, describing the issue and comparing FE to mixed models: https://easystats.github.io/parameters/articles/demean.html There are some newer developments, like fixed effects individual slope models (package feisr), or the panelr package (fun fact: which uses lme4 to fit flexible models for panel data, so these models are actually mixed models, no classical FE models). Best Daniel 1) Bell, Andrew, Malcolm Fairbrother, and Kelvyn Jones. 2019. ?Fixed and Random Effects Models: Making an Informed Choice.? Quality & Quantity 53: 1051?74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0802-x. 2) Bell, Andrew, and Kelvyn Jones. 2015. ?Explaining Fixed Effects: Random Effects Modeling of Time-Series Cross-Sectional and Panel Data.? Political Science Research and Methods 3 (1): 133?53. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.7. -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: R-sig-mixed-models <r-sig-mixed-models-bounces at r-project.org> Im Auftrag von Douglas Bates Gesendet: Montag, 7. Juni 2021 17:10 An: R-mixed models mailing list <r-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org> Betreff: [R-sig-ME] Relationship between mixed-effects models and fixed-effects models Occasionally I encounter discussions of what are called fixed-effects models in econometrics but I haven't seen descriptions of the underlying statistical model. Can anyone point me to a description of these models, in particular a description in terms of a probability distribution of the response? I would be particularly interested in a discussion of how they relate to mixed-effects models as we think of them in lme4 and nlme. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models -- _____________________________________________________________________ Universit?tsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf; K?rperschaft des ?ffentlichen Rechts; Gerichtsstand: Hamburg | www.uke.de Vorstandsmitglieder: Prof. Dr. Burkhard G?ke (Vorsitzender), Joachim Pr?l?, Prof. Dr. Blanche Schwappach-Pignataro, Marya Verdel _____________________________________________________________________ SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE PRINTING _______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models