similar to: GLM Quasibinomial - 48 models

After looking at 48 glm binomial models I decided to try the quasibinomial with the top model 25 (lowest AIC). To try to account for overdispersion (residual deviance 2679.7/68 d.f.) After doing so the dispersion factor is the same for the quasibinomial and less sectors of the beach were significant by p-value. While the p-values in the binomial were more significant for each section of the

I am running a binomial glm with response variable the no of mites of two species y->cbind(mitea,miteb) against two continuous variables (temperature and predatory mites) - see below. My model shows overdispersion as the residual deviance is 48.81 on 5 degrees of freedom. If I use quasibinomial to account for overdispersion the dispersion parameter estimate is 2501139, which seems

Dear all, I've got some questions, probably due to misunderstandings on my behalf, related to fitting overdispersed binomial data using glm(). 1. I can't seem to get the correct p-values from anova.glm() for the F-tests when supplying the dispersion argument and having fitted the model using family=quasibinomial. Actually the p-values for the F-tests seems identical to the p-values for

Hello R-list. I am a "long time listener - first time caller" who has been using R in research and graduate teaching for over 5 years. I hope that my question is simple but not too foolish. I've looked through the FAQ and searched the R site mail list with some close hits but no direct answers, so... I would like to estimate QAIC (and QAICc) for a glm fit using the

Dear all, I am new to R and my question may be trivial to you... I am doing a GLM with binomial errors to compare proportions of species in different categories of seed sizes (4 categories) between 2 sites. In the model summary the residual deviance is much higher than the degree of freedom (Residual deviance: 153.74 on 4 degrees of freedom) and even after correcting for overdispersion by

Hello list, i have a glm with family=binomial, link=logit but there is over-dispersion. So, in order to take into account for this problem i choose to do a glm with family=quasibinomial(). I'm not an expert on this subject and i ask if someone could validate my approach (i'm not sure for the tests) : quasi_glm(myformula,quasibinomial(),start=mystart) summary(quasi) # test t for

Dear all, I try to consider overdispersion in a lmer model. But using family=quasibinomial rather than family=binomial seems to change the fit but not the result of an anova test. In addition if we specify test="F" as it is recomanded for glm using quasibinomial, the test remains a Chisq test. Are all tests scaled for dispersion, or none? Why is there a difference between glm and lmer

In this real example (below), all four of the replicates in one treatment combination had zero failures, and this produced a very high standard error in the summary.lm. =20 Just adding one failure to one of the replicates produced a well-behaved standard error. =20 I don't know if this is a bug, but it is certainly hard for users to understand. =20 I would value your comments=20 =20 Thanks =20

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

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

Hello, I am currently working with the betareg package, which allows the fitting of a variable dispersion beta regression model (Simas et al. 2010, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis). I was wondering whether there is any package in R that allows me to fit variable dispersion parameters in the standard logistic regression model, that is to make the dispersion parameter contingent upon

Hi, my dependent variable is a proportion ("prob.bind"), and the independent variables are factors for group membership ("group") and a covariate ("capacity"). I am interested in the effects of group, capacity, and their interaction. Each subject is observed on all (4) levels of capacity (I use capacity as a covariate because the effect of this variable is normatively

I am unable to calculate confidence intervals for the slope estimate in a quasibinomial glm using confint(). Below is the output and the package info for MASS. Thanks in advance! R 2.9.2 MASS 7.2-48 > confint(glm.palive.0.str) Waiting for profiling to be done... Error: dims [product 37] do not match the length of object [74] > glm.palive.0.str Call: glm(formula = cbind(alive, red) ~ str,

When using test="F" in stat.anova() / anova.glm(), R uses the assumed dispersion parameter for the specified family (e.g. scale=1 for binomial), while S-PLUS automatically uses the estimated dispersion parameter (residual deviance/residual df). I think there are good reasons for the behavior in R -- it fits with the "you get what you actually asked for" philosophy -- and

Until a weeks ago I used stata for everything. Now I'm learning R and trying to move. But, in this stage I'm testing R trying to do the same things than I used to do in stata whit the same outputs. I have a problem with the logit, applying weights. in stata I have this output . svy: logit bach job2 mujer i.egp4 programa delay mdeo i.str evprivate (running logit on estimation sample)

Dear R-help-list, I have a problem in which the explanatory variables are categorical, the response variable is a proportion, and experiment contains technical replicates (pseudoreplicates) as well as biological replicated. I am new to both generalized linear models and mixed- effects models and would greatly appreciate the advice of experienced analysts in this matter. I analyzed the

Hello, The share of concurring votes (i.e. yes-yes and no-no) in total votes between a pair of voters is a function of their ideological distance (index continuous on [1,2]). I show by other means that the votes typically are highly positively correlated (with an average c=0.6). This is because voters sit together and discuss the issue before taking a vote, but also because they share common

Hi ! We study the effect of several variables on fruit set for 44 individuals (plants). For each individual, we have the number of fruits, the number of flowers and a value for each variable. Here is our first model in R : y <- cbind(indnbfruits,indnbflowers); model1 <-glm(y~red*yellow+I(red^2)+I(yellow^2)+densite8+I(densite8^2)+freq8_4+I (freq8_4^2), quasibinomial); - We have

Hello everyone, I am confused about how the dependent variable should be specified, e.g. say S and F denote series of successes and failures. Is it share<-S/(S+F) glm(share~x,family=quasibinomial) or glm(cbind(S,F)~x,family=quasibinomial) The two variants produce very different dispersion parameter and deviances. The book by Crawley, the only one R-book a have, says the second variant is

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 =