Categorical model of strategy
1 Data
This analysis will test whether the relative distribution of response strategies varies across participants’ writing levels.
<- read_delim("long_data_format.tsv", delim="\t") data
The outcome variable has 6 possible response categories:
unique(data$strategy)
## [1] "Interactional" "Communication" "Affective" "Approach"
## [5] "Cognitive" "Metacognitive"
We will test if the relative distribution of these strategies varies across the participants’ levels:
unique(data$level)
## [1] "L2" "L1" "L3" "L4"
2 Models
The strategy data were modelled in categorical mixed-effects models with random intercepts for participants. We compared a model with level
as fixed effect (m1
) against another model without level
as fixed effect (m0
).
<- bf(strategy ~ 1 + (1|subno))
m0 <- bf(strategy ~ level + (1|subno)) m1
Models were run in brms
using the following specifications.
<- brm(m0,
m0 family = categorical(),
cores = 3,
chains = 3,
iter = 4000,
sample_prior = T,
data = data)
<- brm(m1,
m1 family = categorical(),
cores = 3,
chains = 3,
iter = 4000,
sample_prior = T,
data = data)
3 Model comparison
Models were compared using leave-one-out cross-validation. The model comparison shows that adding level
as a fixed effect did not increase the predictive performance. In other words, the distribution of strategies is similar across levels.
<- loo(m0, m1) model_comparison
## elpd_diff se_diff elpd_loo se_elpd_loo
## m0 0.00 0.00 -1803.80 22.58
## m1 -4.33 3.01 -1808.13 23.26
4 Posterior
The posterior probability of response categories is summarised by levels in Figure 4.1. Similar distributions of response categories can be observed across levels with, in general, a larger probability to observe responses that are categorised as interactional and a small probability of observe responses that are categorised as affective.
Figure 4.1: Estimated cell means for response categories by levels with 95% PIs (probability intervals).