Abstract:The premise in experiments with repeated measures is that observations taken in the same experimental unit are correlated and that correlations decrease proportionally to the increase in the distance between measurements in time or space. Nevertheless, these experiments are often analyzed as if the correlations between the repeated measures were constant or using methods that only consider correlations different, which may impact on the rejection rate of the null hypothesis, and ultimately type I error rate and statistical power. In this context, this study investigated the application of mixed linear models with different assumptions about the covariance matrix in data sets from simulated experiments with repeated measures. 84 scenarios that varied in terms of the covariance matrix pattern (14 structures), number of repeated measurements (4 and 8) and sample size (4, 8 and 12) were evaluated. 10,000 data sets were simulated for each scenario based on a multivariate normal distribution and were subsequently analyzed using mixed linear models. Type I error rate and statistical power for the hypothesis test of the interaction between treatments and repeated measures were estimated as the proportion of p values less than or equal to 0.01 or 0.05 out of a total of 10,000 tests for each scenario. The models were also evaluated for their ability to fit the data using Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC). Thus, the frequency with which the covariance structures were chosen by the selection criteria was computed. Results indicate that the assumption chosen most frequently by the information criteria resulted from the specified covariance structure that corresponded to the empirical covariance structure of the analyzed data sets, particularly for those with larger number of repeated measures and sample sizes. Results also indicate that the use of covariance models that do not recognize heterogeneous correlations between repeated measures can inflate type I error or reduce it to very conservative levels, which may affect the conclusion of agricultural experiments. For a 5% significance level, type I error bias was greater than 2α, while for 1% significance level, bias was over 5α. In addition, the statistical power was reduced when the assumption about the covariance matrix of the data sets did not correspond to the empirical covariance structure, particularly for those data sets with a smaller sample size.

Small and negative correlations among clustered observations: limitations of the linear mixed effects model

Assessing an Alternative for `Negative Variance Components': A Gentle Introduction to Bayesian Covariance Structure Modelling for Negative Associations Among Patients with Personalized Treatments

Modeling of Correlated Cognitive Function and Functional Disability Outcomes with Bounded and Missing Data in a Longitudinal Aging Study

Clustering populations by mixed linear models

The Effect of Small Sample Size on Two-Level Model Estimates: A Review and Illustration

Evaluating two small-sample corrections for fixed-effects standard errors and inferences in multilevel models with heteroscedastic, unbalanced, clustered data

Parametric Models of Covariance Matrices for Repeated Measures: A Simulation Study on Fit, Error and Statistical Power in Mixed Linear Models

Maintaining the validity of inference from linear mixed models in stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials under misspecified random-effects structures

At What Level Should One Cluster Standard Errors in Paired and Small-Strata Experiments?

Single-Index Mixed-Effects Model for Asymmetric Bivariate Clustered Data

Residual Normality Assumption and the Estimation of Multiple Membership Random Effects Models

Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner's curse

Using Multilevel Models and Generalized Estimating Equation Models to Account for Clustering in Neurology Clinical Research

Individual-level probabilities and cluster-level proportions: Toward interpretable level 2 estimates in unconflated multilevel models for binary outcomes.

Mixed Effects Models are Sometimes Terrible

Flagging unusual clusters based on linear mixed models using weighted and self-calibrated predictors

Model-assisted analyses of cluster-randomized experiments

A Monte Carlo Study of the Effects of Common Method Variance on Significance Testing and Parameter Bias in Hierarchical Linear Modeling

Differences of Type I error rates for ANOVA and Multilevel-Linear-Models using SAS and SPSS for repeated measures designs

Violation of the Sphericity Assumption and Its Effect on Type-I Error Rates in Repeated Measures ANOVA and Multi-Level Linear Models (MLM)