Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "p_valuez".
Did you mean:
p_value
2013 Nov 25
0
R: lmer specification for random effects: contradictory reults
...cance
associated with the estimated coefficient of the term.
Thus in this case:
mod2.2 <- lmer(dT_purs ~ Z + (1 +T+Z|soggetto) , data = x, REML = FALSE)
mod2.3 <- lmer(dT_purs ~ T + (1 +T+Z|soggetto) , data = x, REML = FALSE)
anova(mod2.1, mod2.2)
p_valueT = 3.203e-05
anova(mod2.1, mod2.3)
p_valueZ = 0.001793
What about the p_value relative to the (1+T+Z|subject)?
One option is to compute:
mod2.4 <- lm(dT_purs ~ T + (1 +T+Z|soggetto) , data = x)
and then execute the loklikelihood test as follows:
L0 <-logLik(mod2.4)
L1 <-logLik(mod2.1)
LR <--2*(L1-L0)
pv <- pchisq(LR,2,ncp =...
2013 Nov 25
4
lmer specification for random effects: contradictory reults
Hi All,
I was wondering if someone could help me to solve this issue with lmer.
In order to understand the best mixed effects model to fit my data, I
compared the following options according to the procedures specified in many
papers (i.e. Baayen
<http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDsQFjAA