Math versus meaning in MAIHDA: A commentary on multilevel statistical models for quantitative intersectionality.

Clicks: 295
ID: 40199
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #73 of 124 articles by views in Social science & medicine (1982)

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 124 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Intersectionality has been increasingly adopted as a theoretical framework within quantitative research, raising questions about the congruence between theory and statistical methodology. Which methods best map onto intersectionality theory, with regard to their assumptions and the results they produce? Which methods are best positioned to provide information on health inequalities and direction for their remediation? One method, multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA), has been argued to provide statistical efficiency for high-dimensional intersectional analysis along with valid intersection-specific predictions and tests of interactions. However, the method has not been thoroughly tested in scenarios where ground truth is known.We perform a simulation analysis using plausible data generating scenarios where intersectional effects are present. We apply variants of MAIHDA and ordinary least squares regression to each, and we observe how the effects are reflected in the estimates that the methods produce.The first-order fixed effects estimated by MAIHDA can be interpreted neither as effects on mean outcome when interacting variables are set to zero (as in a correctly-specified linear regression model), nor as effects on mean outcome averaged over the individuals in the population (as in a misspecified linear regression model), but rather as effects on mean outcome averaged over an artificial population where all intersections are of equal size. Furthermore, the values of the random effects do not reflect advantage or disadvantage of different intersectional groups.Because first-order fixed effects estimates are the reference point for interpreting random effects as intersectional effects in MAIHDA analyses, the random effects alone do not provide meaningful estimates of intersectional advantage or disadvantage. Rather, the fixed and random parts of the model must be combined for their estimates to be meaningful. We therefore advise caution when interpreting the results of MAIHDA in quantitative intersectional analyses.
Reference Key
lizotte2019mathsocial Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Lizotte, Daniel J;Mahendran, Mayuri;Churchill, Siobhan M;Bauer, Greta R;
Journal Social science & medicine (1982)
Year 2019
DOI
S0277-9536(19)30493-9
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.