title: Sample Size Considerations in Prevention Research Applications of Multilevel Modeling and Structural Equation Modeling.
abstract: When the goal of prevention research is to capture in statistical models some measure of the dynamic complexity in structures and processes implicated in problem behavior and its prevention, approaches such as multilevel modeling (MLM) and structural equation modeling (SEM) are indicated. Yet the assumptions that must be satisfied if these approaches are to be used responsibly raise concerns regarding their use in prevention research involving smaller samples. In this article, we discuss in nontechnical terms the role of sample size in MLM and SEM and present findings from the latest simulation work on the performance of each approach at sample sizes typical of prevention research. For each statistical approach, we draw from extant simulation studies to establish lower bounds for sample size (e.g., MLM can be applied with as few as ten groups comprising ten members with normally distributed data, restricted maximum likelihood estimation, and a focus on fixed effects; sample sizes as small as N = 50 can produce reliable SEM results with normally distributed data and at least three reliable indicators per factor) and suggest strategies for making the best use of the modeling approach when N is near the lower bound.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA. rhoyle@duke.edu.
authors.forename: Rick H
authors.initials: RH
authors.lastname: Hoyle
authors.affiliation: Center for Developmental Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. gottfredson@unc.edu.
authors.forename: Nisha C
authors.initials: NC
authors.lastname: Gottfredson
mesh_terms: D008962:Models, Theoretical; D011314:Preventive Health Services / Q000458:organization & administration*; D018401:Sample Size
keywords: Multilevel modeling; Sample size; Structural equation modeling
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2008 Sep;13(3):203-29
references.pmid: 18778152
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1990 Mar;107(2):238-46
references.pmid: 2320703
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2011 Dec;16(4):373-90
references.pmid: 22040372
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Sep 13;108 Suppl 3:15639-46
references.pmid: 21730136
references.citation: Int J Biostat. 2010 Apr 22;6(1):Article 16
references.pmid: 20949128
references.citation: Prev Sci. 2008 Dec;9(4):231-44
references.pmid: 18780181
references.citation: J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Aug;59(4):499-506
references.pmid: 1918552
references.citation: Multivariate Behav Res. 2003 Oct 1;38(4):529-69
references.pmid: 26777445
references.citation: Prev Sci. 2002 Jun;3(2):125-33
references.pmid: 12088137
references.citation: Prev Sci. 2015 Oct;16(7):950-5
references.pmid: 25578307
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2000 Jun;5(2):199-213
references.pmid: 10937329
references.citation: Multivariate Behav Res. 1995 Jan 1;30(1):1-21
references.pmid: 26828342
references.citation: Multivariate Behav Res. 1998 Apr 1;33(2):181-220
references.pmid: 26771883
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):19-40
references.pmid: 11928888
references.citation: Prev Sci. 2012 Jun;13(3):288-99
references.pmid: 22246429
references.citation: Multivariate Behav Res. 2006 Mar 1;41(1):65-83
references.pmid: 26788895