Understanding how adherence affects outcomes is crucial when developing and assigning interventions. However, interventions are often evaluated by conducting randomized experiments and estimating intent-to-treat effects, which ignore actual treatment received. Dose-response effects can supplement intent-to-treat effects when participants are offered the full dose but many only receive a partial dose due to nonadherence. Using these data, we can estimate the magnitude of the treatment effect at different levels of adherence, which serve as a proxy for different levels of treatment. In this dissertation, I conducted Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate when linear dose-response effects can be accurately and precisely estimated in randomized experiments comparing a no-treatment control condition to a treatment condition with partial adherence. Specifically, I evaluated the performance of confounder adjustment and instrumental variable methods when their assumptions were met (Study 1) and when their assumptions were violated (Study 2). In Study 1, the confounder adjustment and instrumental variable methods provided unbiased estimates of the dose-response effect across sample sizes (200, 500, 2,000) and adherence distributions (uniform, right skewed, left skewed). The adherence distribution affected power for the instrumental variable method. In Study 2, the confounder adjustment method provided unbiased or minimally biased estimates of the dose-response effect under no or weak (but not moderate or strong) unobserved confounding. The instrumental variable method provided extremely biased estimates of the dose-response effect under violations of the exclusion restriction (no direct effect of treatment assignment on the outcome), though less severe violations of the exclusion restriction should be investigated.

Researchers are often interested in estimating interactions in multilevel models, but many researchers assume that the same procedures and interpretations for interactions in single-level models apply to multilevel models. However, estimating interactions in multilevel models is much more complex than in single-level models. Because uncentered (RAS) or grand mean centered (CGM) level-1 predictors in two-level models contain two sources of variability (i.e., within-cluster variability and between-cluster variability), interactions involving RAS or CGM level-1 predictors also contain more than one source of variability. In this Master’s thesis, I use simulations to demonstrate that ignoring the four sources of variability in a total level-1 interaction effect can lead to erroneous conclusions. I explain how to parse a total level-1 interaction effect into four specific interaction effects, derive equivalencies between CGM and centering within context (CWC) for this model, and describe how the interpretations of the fixed effects change under CGM and CWC. Finally, I provide an empirical example using diary data collected from working adults with chronic pain.