The importance of identifying levels in multilevel analysis: An illustration of the effects of ignoring the top or intermediate levels in school effectiveness research

School Effectiveness and School Improvement

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 103-130

  Opdenakker, Marie Christine ^a   Van Damme, Jan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0009963799     PISSN: 09243453     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1076/0924-3453(200003)11:1;1-#;ft103     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. London: Edward Arnold.
2. Hill, P.W., & Rowe, K.J. (1996). Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 1-34.
3. Hox, J. (1994). Applied multilevel analysis. Amsterdam: TT-publicaties.
4. Hox, J., & Kreft, I. (1994). Multilevel analysis methods. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 283-299.
5. Julian, M. W. (1996, April). The consequences of multilevel data structures in covariance modeling. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
6. Kreft, I.G.G. (1996). Are multilevel techniques necessary? An overview, including simulation studies. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, [http://www.stat.ucla.edu/∼kreft/quarterly/ quarterly.html and http://www.stat.ucla.edu/∼kreft/quarterly/node1 to node19. html]
7. Longford, N. (1993). Random coefficient models. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
8. Muthén, B., & Satorra, A. (1991). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 35, 267-316.
9. Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (1997). Centreren in multilevelanalyse: Implicaties van twee centreringsmethoden voor het bestuderen van schooleffectiviteit [Centering in multilevel analysis: Implications of two centering methods for the study of school effectiveness]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 22, 264-290.
10. Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (1998, April). The importance of identifying levels in multilevel analysis: An illustration of the effects of ignoring the top or intermediate levels in school effectiveness research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
11. Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (in press). Effects of schools, teaching staff and classes on achievement and well-being in secondary education: Similarities and differences between school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11.
12. Opdenakker, M.-C., Van den Noortgate, W., & Onghena, P. (1999, April). Ignoring the top or an intermediate level in multilevel analysis: A simulation study [Abstract]. In Current Issues in Statistics (p. 54). Leuven: UCS.
13. Rasbash, J., & Woodhouse, G. (1995). MLn command reference. London: University of London, Institute of Education.
14. Snijders, T.A.B., & Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced modeling. London: Sage.
15. Van Damme, J., De Troy, A., Meyer, J., Minnaert, A., Lorent, G., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Verduyckt, P. (1996). De aanvangsjaren in het secundair onderwijs. Een eerste bundeling van resultaten van het LOSO-project. Bijlagen. [The first grades of secondary education. A first collection of results of the LOSO-project. Appendices]. Leuven: University of Leuven, Secondary and Higher Education Research Centre.
16. Van Damme, J., De Troy, A., Meyer, J., Minnaert, A., Lorent, G., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Verduyckt, P. (1997). Succesvol doorstromen in de aanvangsjaren van het secundair onderwijs [Successful passing through the first years in secondary education]. Leuven: Acco.