Abstract
The use of multilevel modeling is presented as an alternative to separate item and subject ANOVAs (F 1 ×F 2) in psycholinguistic research. Multilevel modeling is commonly utilized to model variability arising from the nesting of lower level observations within higher level units (e.g., students within schools, repeated measures within individuals). However, multilevel models can also be used when two random factors are crossed at the same level, rather than nested. The current work illustrates the use of the multilevel model for crossed random effects within the context of a psycholinguistic experimental study, in which both subjects and items are modeled as random effects within the same analysis, thus avoiding some of the problems plaguing current approaches.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baayen, R. H., Tweedie, F. J., &Schreuder, R. (2002). The subjects as a simple random effect fallacy: Subject variability and morphological family effects in the mental lexicon.Brain & Language,81, 55–65.
Buchanan, L., & Westbury, C. (2000).Wordmine database: Probabilistic values for all four to seven letter words in the English Language. www.wordmine.org.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 335–359.
Forster, K. I., &Dickinson, R. G. (1976). More on the language-asfixed-effect fallacy: Monte Carlo estimates of error rates forF1,F2,F′, minF′.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,15, 135–142.
Ghisletta, P., & Renaud, O. (2005).Multilevel models for cross-factors data to generalize across both subjects and items. Paper presented at the 58th annual scientific meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Orlando, FL.
Hoffman, L., &Rovine, M. J. (2007). Multilevel models for experimental psychologists: Foundations and illustrative examples.Behavior Research Methods,39, 107–117.
Locker, L., Simpson, G. B., &Yates, M. (2003). Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of ambiguous words.Memory & Cognition,31, 505–515.
Locker, L., Yates, M., & Simpson, G. B. (2003, November).The influence of phonological neighborhood frequency in visual lexical decision. Poster presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Vancouver, BC.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schrieber, T. A. (1998).The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Available at www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation.
Pexman, P. M., &Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 323–334.
Quené, H., &van den Bergh, H. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial.Speech Communication,43, 103–121.
Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., &Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,9, 487–494.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2003). A further look at the “language-as-fixedeffect fallacy.”Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,57, 141–151.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J.M.C., &Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with the “language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 416–426.
Raudenbush, S. W. (1993). A crossed random effects model for unbalanced data with applications in cross-sectional and longitudinal research.Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 18(4), 321–349.
Raudenbush, S. W., &Bryk, A. S. (2002).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Strain, E., Patterson, K., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1140–1154.
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models and individual growth models.Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics,24, 323–355.
Snijders, T. A. B., &Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., &Zuccolotto, A. (2002).E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
Siakaluk, P. D., Sears, C. R., &Lupker, S. J. (2002). Orthographic neighborhood effects in lexical decision: The effects of nonword orthographic neighborhood size.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 661–681.
Wike, E. L., &Church, J. D. (1976). Comments on Clark’s “The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy.”Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,15, 249–255.
Wright, D. B. (1998). Modeling clustered data in autobiographical memory research: The multilevel approach.Applied Cognitive Psychology,12, 339–357.
Yates, M., Locker, L., &Simpson, G. B. (2004). The influence of phonological neighborhood on visual word perception.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 452–452.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The electronic appendix and the accompanying data are available from the second author at psych.unl.edu/hoffman/HomePage.htm.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Locker, L., Hoffman, L. & Bovaird, J.A. On the use of multilevel modeling as an alternative to items analysis in psycholinguistic research. Behavior Research Methods 39, 723–730 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192962
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192962