similar to: scale factors/overdispersion in GLM: possible bug?

Hi, I was wondering why anova() and drop1() give different tail probabilities for F tests. I guess overdispersion is calculated differently in the following example, but why? Thanks for any advice, Tom For example: > x<-c(2,3,4,5,6) > y<-c(0,1,0,0,1) > b1<-glm(y~x,binomial) > b2<-glm(y~1,binomial) > drop1(b1,test="F") Single term deletions Model: y ~

Hi, I am performing glm with binomial family and my data show slight overdispersion (HF<1.5). Nevertheless, in order to take into account for this heterogeneity though weak, I use F-test rather than Chi-square (Krackow & Tkadlec, 2001). But surprisingly, outputs of this two tests are exactly similar. What is the reason and how can I scale the output by overdispersion ?? Thank you,

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

Dear R users, I am trying to fully understand the difference between estimating overdispersion with glm.nb() from MASS compared to glm(..., family = quasipoisson). It seems that (i) the coefficient estimates are different and also (ii) the summary() method for glm.nb suggests that overdispersion is taken to be one: "Dispersion parameter for Negative Binomial(0.9695) family taken to be

I have a few questions relating to overdispersion in a sex ratio data set that I am working with (note that I already have an analysis with GLMMs for fixed effects, this is just to estimate dispersion). The response variable is binomial because nestlings can only be male or female. I have samples of 1-5 nestlings from each nest (individuals within a nest are not independent, so the response

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, I'm a grad student in the Intelligent Transportation Systems lab at Portland State Univ. in Portland, OR, USA. I'm trying to learn the basics of R to run a negative binomial in the near future, and so I ran a test regression on roadway crash data obtained from "Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis" by Washington et al (p. 250). I ran the

It seems that MASS suggest to judge on the basis of sum(residuals(mode,type="pearson"))/df.residual(mode). My question: Is there any rule of thumb of the cutpoiont value? The paper "On the Use of Corrections for Overdispersion" suggests overdispersion exists if the deviance is at least twice the number of degrees of freedom. Are there any further hints? Thanks. -- Ronggui

Dear users of the R mailing list, I am a ph.d. student in biology working on red deer in Norway, who would like to conduct an analysis with random factor where the response is binomially distributed. This cannot be conducted in S-plus, and I was told by others that it may be possible in R. However, I soon got into trouble which I hope you can help me to solve. My model is on this form:

I have been implementing a proposal of Jim Lindsey for glm(.) to return AIC values, and print.glm(.) and print.summary.glm(.) printing them.... however: >>>>> "Jim" == Jim Lindsey <jlindsey@luc.ac.be> writes: Jim> The problem still remains of getting the correct AIC when the user Jim> wants the scale parameter to be fixed. (The calculation should

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 list! i am running an anlysis on proportion data using binomial (quasibinomial family) error structure. My data comprises of two continuous vars, body size and range size, as well as of feeding guild, nest placement, nest type and foragig strata as factors. I hope to model with these variables the preference of primary forests (#successes) by certain bird species. My code therefore looks

How can I eliminate the overdispersion for binary data apart the use of the quasibinomial? help me Eva Iannario ------------------------------------------------------ Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom http://click.libero.it/infostrada11gen07

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

Dear All, I am working with linear mixed-effects models using the lme4 package in R. I created a model using the lmer function including some main effects, a three-way interaction and a random effect. Because I work with a binomial and poisson distribution, I want to know whether there is overdispersion in my data or not. Does anybody know how I can retrieve this information from R? Thank you

Greetings, everybody. Can I ask some glm questions? 1. How do you find out -2*lnL(saturated model)? In the output from glm, I find: Null deviance: which I think is -2[lnL(null) - lnL(saturated)] Residual deviance: -2[lnL(fitted) - lnL(saturated)] The Null model is the one that includes the constant only (plus offset if specified). Right? I can use the Null and Residual deviance to

I am looking for the correct commands to do the following things: 1. I have a binomial logistic regression model and i want to test for overdispersion. 2. If I do indeed have overdispersion i need to then run a quasi-binomial model, but I'm not sure of the command. 3. I can get the residuals of the model, but i need to then apply a shapiro wilk test to test them. Does anyone know the command

Dear friends, As we all know, the usual model selection criteria(e.g.deviance,AIC...) in GLMs isn't very good for selecting the best model when overdispersion exist, so we need to adjust the corresponding statistic,see(Fitzmaurice,G.M. (1997) Model selection with overdispersed

Dear R gurus I am analysing data from a study of behaviour and shade utilization of chimpanzees. I am using GLMs in R (version 2.13.0) to test whether shade/sun utilization is predicted by behaviour observed. I am thus interested in whether an interaction of behaviour (as a predictor) and presence in the sun/shade (also predictor) predicts the counts I have for the respective categories. I have

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