Local Multilevel Modeling for Comparisons of Institutional Performance
We propose a general methodology for evaluating the quality of public sector activities such as education, health and social services. The traditional instrument used in comparisons of institutional performance is Multilevel Modeling (Goldstein, H., Multilevel statistical models, Arnold, London, 1995). However, rankings based on confidence intervals of the organization-level random effects often prevent to discriminate between institutions, because uncertainty intervals may be large and overlapped. This means that, in some situations, a single global model is not sufficient to explain all the variability, and methods able to capture local behaviour are necessary. The proposal, which is entitled Local Multilevel Modeling, consists of a two-step approach which combines Cluster-Weighted Modeling (Gershenfeld, N., The nature of mathematical modeling, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999) with traditional Multilevel Modeling. An example regarding the evaluation of the “relative effectiveness” of healthcare institutions in Lombardy region is discussed.
The authors would like to express their thanks to Maurizio Sanarico for his valuable advice.
- Engster, D., & Parlitz, U. (2006). Local and cluster weighted modeling for time series prediction. In B. Schelter, M. Winterhalder, & J. Timmer (Eds.), Handbook of time series analysis. Recent theoretical developments and applications (pp. 39–65). Weinheim: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Galimberti, G., & Soffritti, G. (2007). Multiple cluster structures and mixture models: Recent developments for multilevel data. In Book of short papers CLADAG 2007 “Meeting of the Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society” (pp. 203–206), September 12–14, Università degli Studi di Macerata. EUM, Macerata.Google Scholar
- Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
- Goldstein, H., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1996). League tables and their limitations: Statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance. JRSS A, 159(3), 385–443.Google Scholar