Table 7.

Simulation results with intercepts β_0j = logit(j/J), J = 5; (β₁, β₂, β₃) = (4, 1, .06); and average (p_i1, p_i2, p_i3, p_i4, p_i5) = (.91, .05, .02, .01, .01)

Parameter	Sample Size	Method	Percent Relative Bias	Root MSE	Coverage Probability
All simulation replicationsa
β1 = 4	40	ML	115.1	7.338	97.8%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	−4.7	1.011	96.1%
		Clogg et al.	1.9	1.117	94.0%
	80	ML	97.5	6.632	94.6%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	−3.1	0.889	94.4%
		Clogg et al.	5.1	1.048	96.0%
β2 = 1	40	ML	33.9	1.005	95.6%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	0.7	0.424	96.3%
		Clogg et al.	9.7	0.533	94.4%
	80	ML	12.1	0.400	94.6%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	−0.2	0.326	95.9%
		Clogg et al.	1.3	0.340	96.0%
β3 = 0.06	40	ML	37.6	0.098	94.5%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	2.4	0.067	96.5%
		Clogg et al.	−7.5	0.058	95.2%
	80	ML	8.3	0.080	94.6%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	1.1	0.043	95.9%
		Clogg et al.	2.2	0.046	94.8%
Results when ML convergedb
β1 = 4	40	ML	−2.4	1.204	96.2%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	−20.3	1.123	97.3%
		Clogg et al.	−21.9	1.202	86.2%
	80	ML	−5.5	0.705	95.6%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	−14.6	0.822	92.0%
		Clogg et al.	−8.8	0.695	94.3%
β2 = 1	40	ML	26.1	0.763	95.4%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	2.9	0.403	97.2%
		Clogg et al.	12.4	0.556	96.3%
	80	ML	11.5	0.391	93.9%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	−0.3	0.318	95.4%
		Clogg et al.	4.7	0.333	96.1%
β3 = 0.06	40	ML	34.6	0.089	94.8%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	0.4	0.077	97.3%
		Clogg et al.	−19.6	0.051	96.3%
	80	ML	8.9	0.078	94.1%
		ML:Bias-Corrected	2.9	0.042	96.2%
		Clogg et al.	−1.0	0.045	93.2%

^aWhen ML did not converge, ML estimates are from last (25th) iteration.

^bML converged for 57% of the simulation replications when n = 40 and 63% when n = 80