similar to: GLM and Neg. Binomial models

I am attempting to run a glm with a binomial model to analyze proportion data. I have been following Crawley's book closely and am wondering if there is an accepted standard for how much is too much overdispersion? (e.g. change in AIC has an accepted standard of 2). In the example, he fits several models, binomial and quasibinomial and then accepts the quasibinomial. The output for residual

Following p.206 of "Statistical Models in S", I wish to change the code for summary.glm() so that it estimates the dispersion for binomial & poisson models when the parameter dispersion is set to zero. The following changes [insertion of ||dispersion==0 at one point; and !is.null(dispersion) at another] will do the trick: "summary.glm" <- function(object, dispersion =

Hi, I want to fit a GEE with a negative binomial distribution. I have uesd already a poisson glm and then neg binommial to deal with alot of dispersion. In my neg binomial residuals i have some patterns so i have implemented a GEE, but only with a poisson family as i couldnt with neg binomial. However the residual patterns in fact look worse here. When i try and put neg binomial family it

There may be a bug in the anova.glm function. deathstar[32] R R : Copyright 2004, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing Version 2.0.1 (2004-11-15), ISBN 3-900051-07-0 R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. You are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type 'license()' or 'licence()' for distribution details. R is a collaborative project

Hi, Can someone tell me if it is possible to set the dispersion parameter constant when fitting a negative binomial glm in R? I've looked at the documentation and can't find the appropriate argument to pass. In STATA I can type: nbreg depvar [indepvar...], offset(offset) dispersion(constant). Thank you [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

THANKS so very much for your help (previous and future!). I have a two follow-up questions. 1) You say that dispersion = 1 by definition ....dispersion changes from 1 to 13.5 when I go from binomial to quasibinomial....does this suggest that I should use the binomial? i.e., is the dispersion factor more important that the 2) Is there a cutoff for too much overdispersion - mine seems to be

Edward, you also can use the package aod on CRAN, see the help page of the function negbin. Best Matthieu An example: > library(aod) > data(dja) > negbin(y ~ group + offset(log(trisk)), ~group, dja, fixpar = list(4, 0)) Negative-binomial model ----------------------- negbin(formula = y ~ group + offset(log(trisk)), random = ~group, data = dja, fixpar = list(4, 0))

Hi, I would like to obtain the dispersion parameter for a quasipoisson model for later use in calculating QAIC values for model comparison.Can anyone suggest a method of how to go about doing this? The idea I have now is that I could use the residual deviance divided by the residual degrees of freedom to obtain the dispersion parameter. The residual deviance is available in the summary

Dear list, I've noticed that influence.measures and cooks.distance gives different results for non-gaussian GLMs. For example, using R-1.9.0 alpha (2003-03-17) under Windows: > ## Dobson (1990) Page 93: Randomized Controlled Trial : > counts <- c(18,17,15,20,10,20,25,13,12) > outcome <- gl(3,1,9) > treatment <- gl(3,3) > glm.D93 <- glm(counts ~ outcome +

Dear R users, I am having problems trying to fit quasipoisson and negative binomials glm. My data set contains abundance (counts) of a species under different management regimens. First, I tried to fit a poisson glm: > summary(model.p<-glm(abund~mgmtcat,poisson)) Call: glm(formula = abund ~ mgmtcat, family = poisson) . . . (Dispersion parameter

Hello R users I like to extract z values for x1 and x2. I know how to extract coefficents using model$coef but I don't know how to extract z values for each of independent variable. I looked around using names(model) but I couldn't find how to extract z values. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks TM ######################################################### >summary(model) Call:

I contacted John Fox about this first, because parts of the file are attributed to him. He says that he didn't write rstandard.glm(), and suggests asking r-devel. As it stands, rstandard.glm() has summary(model)$dispersion outside the sqrt(), while in rstandard.lm(), the sd is already sqrt()ed. This seems to follow stdres() in VR/MASS/R/stdres.R. Of course for the c("poisson",

Hi list, can anybody point me to the trick how glm is computing the dispersion parameter in quasi-poisson regression, eg. glm(...,family="quasipoisson")? Thanks &regards, Sven

Hi all, I was wondering if somebody could give me advice regarding the dispersion parameter in GLMM's. I'm a beginner in R and basically in GLMM's. I've ran a GLMM with a poisson family and got really nice results that conform with theory, as well with results that I've obtained previously with other analysis and that others have obtained in similar studies. But the

Hi Community, I'm trying to reconcile Cook's Distances computed in glm. The following snippet of code shows that the Cook's Distances contours on the plot of Residuals v Leverage do not seem to be the same as the values produced by cooks.distance() or in the Cook's Distance against observation number plot. counts <- c(18,17,15,20,10,20,25,13,12) outcome <- gl(3,1,9)

Hello, I'm having an error when trying to fit the next GLM: >>model<-glm(response ~ CLONE_M + CLONE_F + HATCHING +(CLONE_M*CLONE_F) + (CLONE_M*HATCHING) + (CLONE_F*HATCHING) + (CLONE_M*CLONE_F*HATCHING), family=quasipoisson) >> anova(model, test="Chi") >Error in if (dispersion == 1) Inf else object$df.residual : missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed If I fit

R 2.7 Windows XP I have two model that have been run using exactly the same data, both fit using glm(). One model is a linear regression (gaussian(link = "identity")) the other a quasipoisson(link = "log"). I have log likelihoods from each model. Is there any way I can determine which model is a better fit to the data? anova() does not appear to work as the models have the

Dear R-helpers, this mail is intended to mention a rather trange result and generate potential useful comments on it. I am not aware of another posts on this issue ( RSiteSearch("quasipoisson lmer version dispersion")). MUsing the exemple in the reference of the lmer function (in lme4 library) and turning it into a quasi-poisson or quasi-binomial analysis, we get different results,

Dear All, I'm analysing a negative binomial dataset from a population-based study. Many covariates were determined on household level, so all members of a household have the same value for those covariates. In STATA, there seems to be an option for 'clustered analysis' for neg-bin regression. Does an equivalent exist for R(MASS)'s glm.nb or a comparable function? Many thanks for

Hello all: I frequently have glm models in which the residual variance is much lower than the residual degrees of freedom (e.g. Res.Dev=30.5, Res.DF = 82). Is it appropriate for me to use a quasipoisson error distribution and test it with an F distribution? It seems to me that I could stand to gain a much-reduced standard error if I let the procedure estimate my dispersion factor (which