Dominance analysis (DA) is a method used to evaluate the relative importance of predictors that was originally proposed for linear regression models. This article proposes an extension of DA that allows researchers to determine the relative importance of predictors in hierarchical linear models (HLM). Commonly used measures of model adequacy in HLM (i.e., deviance, pseudo-R2, and proportional reduction in prediction error) were evaluated in terms of their appropriateness as measures of model adequacy for DA. Empirical examples were used to illustrate the procedures for comparing the relative importance of Level-1 predictors and Level-2 predictors in a person-in-group design. Finally, a simulation study was conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed procedures and develop recommendations.
AzenR.BudescuD. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129–148.
2.
AzenR.BudescuD. V. (2009). Applications of multiple regression in psychological research. In MillsapR. E.Maydeu-OlivaresA. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 285–310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
AzenR.TraxelN. M. (2009). Using dominance analysis to determine predictor importance in logistic regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 319–347.
4.
BringJ. (1994). How to standardize regression coefficients. The American Statistician, 48, 209–213.
5.
BudescuD. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542–551.
6.
ChevanA.SutherlandM. (1991). Hierarchical partitioning. The American Statistician, 45, 90–96.
7.
GrömpingU. (2009). Variable importance assessment in regression: Linear regression versus random forest. The American Statistician, 63, 308–319.
8.
HairE.HalleT.Terry-HumenE.LavelleB.CalkinsJ. (2006). Children’s school readiness in the ECLS-K: Predictions to academic, health, and social outcomes in first grade. Early Childhood Research, 21, 431–454.
9.
KreftI. G. G.de LeeuwJ.AikenL. S. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1–21.
10.
LindemanR. H.MerendaP. F.GoldR. Z. (1980). Introduction to bivariate and multivariate analysis. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
11.
LipovetskyS.ConklinM. (2001). Analysis of regression in game theory approach. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 17, 319–330.
12.
LuoW.KwokO. (2010). Proportional reduction of prediction error in cross-classified random effects models. Sociological Methods & Research, 39, 188–205.
13.
McCoachD. B.BlackA. C. (2008). Evaluation of model fit and adequacy. In O’ConnellA. A.McCoachD. B. (Eds.), Multilevel modeling of educational data (pp. 245–272). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
14.
MoerbeekM. (2004). The consequence of ignoring a level of nesting in multilevel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 129–149.
15.
RaudenbushS. W. (1989a). “Centering” predictors in multilevel analysis: Choices in consequences. Multilevel Modeling Newsletter, 1, 10–12.
16.
RaudenbushS. W. (1989b). A response to Longord and Plewis. Multilevel Modeling Newsletter, 1, 8–10.
17.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models. Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
SnijdersT.BoskerR. J. (1994). Modeled variance in two-level models. Sociological Methods & Research, 22, 342–363.
20.
TranmerM. (2001). Ignoring a level in a multilevel model: Evidence from UK census data. Environment and Planning, 33, 941–948.
21.
Van den NoortgateW.OpdenakkerM. C.OnghenaP. (2005). The effects of ignoring a level in multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 281–303.
22.
Van LandeghemG.De FraineB.Van DammeJ. (2005). The consequence of ignoring a level of nesting in multilevel analysis: A comment. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 423–434.
23.
WallerN. G. (2008). Fungible weights in multiple regression. Psychometika, 73, 691–703.
