similar to: Post stratification weights in survey package in R

Hi all, here is my situation In my experiment, I expose 10 subjects to 24 different conditions of stimuli. Each condition is exposed to the same subject 3x. This would make each subject have 24x3=72 data points. All the subjects combined would have 72x10=720 data points with each condition having 30 datapoints. To find the grand average of each condition, I find the average of all the

Just a general question concerning the woolf test (package vcd), when we have stratified data (2x2 tables) and when the p.value of the woolf-test is below 0.05 then we assume that there is a heterogeneity and a common odds ratio cannot be computed? Does this mean that we have to try to add more stratification variables (stratify more) to make the woolf-test p.value insignificant? Also in the

Dear WizaRds, Working through sampling theory, I tried to comprehend the concept of stratification and apply it with Survey to a small example. My question is more of theoretic nature, so I apologize if this does not fully fit this board's intention, but I have come to a complete stop in my efforts and need an expert to help me along. Please help: age<-matrix(c(rep(1,5), rep(2,3),

Version 3.9 of the survey package is now on CRAN. Since the last announcement (version 3.6-11, about a year ago) the main changes are - Database-backed survey objects: the data can live in a SQLite (or other DBI-compatible) database and be loaded as needed. - Ordinal logistic regression - Support for the 'mitools' package and multiply-imputed data - Conditioning plots,

Version 3.9 of the survey package is now on CRAN. Since the last announcement (version 3.6-11, about a year ago) the main changes are - Database-backed survey objects: the data can live in a SQLite (or other DBI-compatible) database and be loaded as needed. - Ordinal logistic regression - Support for the 'mitools' package and multiply-imputed data - Conditioning plots,

Dear list colleagues, I'm trying to come up with a test question for undergraduates to illustrate comparison of means from a complex survey design. The data for the example looks roughly like this: mytest<-data.frame(harper=rnorm(500, mean=60, sd=1), party=sample(c("BQ", "NDP", "Conservative", "Liberal", "None", NA), size=500,

I have a large dataset where each Subject answered seven similar Items, which are binary yes/no questions. So I've always used Subject and Item random effects in my models, fit with lmer(), e.g.: model<-lmer(Response~Race+Gender+...+(1|Subject_ID)+(1| Item_ID),data,binomial) But I recently realized something. Most of the variables that I've tested as fixed effects are properties

Hi I am estimating the following coxph function with stratification and frailty?where each person had multiple events. m<-coxph(Surv(dtime1,status1)~gender+cage+uplf+strata(enum)+frailty(id),xmodel) ? > head(xmodel) id enum dtime status gender cage uplf 1 1008666 1 2259.1412037 1 MA 0.000 0 2 1008666 2 36.7495023 1 MA 2259.141 0 3 1008666

Hi. I was wondering if anyone might have some suggestions about how I can overcome a problem of "iteration limit reached without convergence" when fitting a mixed effects model. In this study: Outcome is a measure of heart action Age is continuous (in weeks) Gender is Male or Female (0 or 1) Genotype is Wild type or knockout (0 or 1) Animal is the Animal ID as a factor

Using R version 1.8.1 for Windows, I obtain an error message using the following code. The data frame was constructed in the counting process style, where V1 is the start time, V2 is the stop time, and V3 is the censoring indicator. There are no zero-length time intervals. Variable V4 is the stratification factor (gender: F,M). S<-Surv(V1,V2,V3) fit<-survfit(S ~ V4,data=test.dat)

Dear R-user, I have a data like this below, age <- c("young","mid","old") married <- c("no","yes") income <- c("low","high","medium") gender <- c("female","male") I want to make some of combination data like these, age.income.dat <- expand.grid(age,

dear all, I'm building new dataframes from bigger one's using e.g. columns F76, F83, F90: JJ<-data.frame( c( as.character(rep( gender,3))) , c( F76,6- F83, F90) ) Looking into JJ one has: c.as.character.rep.gender..8... c.6...F73..F78..F79..F82..6...F84..F94..F106..F109 1 w 2 2 w

Dear R people, I am having a problem with modeling the following SAS code in R: Class ID Gr Hemi Region Gender Model Y = Gr Region Hemi Gender Gr*Hemi Gr*Region Hemi*Region Gender*Region Gender*Hemi Gr*Hemi*Region Gender*Hemi*Region Gr*Gender*Hemi*Region Random Intercept Region Hemi /Subject = ID (Gr Gender) I.e., ID is a random effect nested in Gr and Gender, leading to ID-specific

Hi everyone, I'm having some difficulty getting "simple effects" for the ols() function in the rms package. The example below illustrates my difficulty -- I'll be grateful for any help. #make up some data exD <- structure(list(Gender = structure(c(1L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L), .Label = c("F", "M"), class = "factor"),

Hi there, > Value=c(709,679,699,657,594,677,592,538,476,508,505,539) > Lard=rep(c("Fresh","Rancid"),each=6) > Gender=rep(c("Male","Male","Male","Female","Female","Female"),2) > Food=data.frame(Value,Lard,Gender) > Food Value Lard Gender 1 709 Fresh Male 2 679 Fresh Male 3 699 Fresh

"&&" seems to behave strangely and gives different results from "&" e.g. in a data frame selection (regardless whether terms are bracketed)? ===========Script======================= test=data.frame(gender=c("F","M","M","F","F"),side=c("R","L","R","L","R")) test

Dear R-Community! For example I have a study with 4 treatment groups (10 subjects per group) and 4 visits. Additionally, the gender is taken into account. I think - and hope this is a goog idea (!) - this data can be analysed using lme as below. In a balanced design everything is fine, but in an unbalanced design there are differences depending on fitting y~visit*treat*gender or

I'm studying the calibration function in the survey package in preparation for raking some survey data. Results from the rake function below agree with other sources. When I run calibrate, I get a warning message and the M and F weights seem to be reversed. Even allowing for that, the deviation between calibrated and raked weights is much more than I expected. I see that in the calibrate

I am trying to plot an interaction in a multilevel model. Here is some sample data. In the following example, it is longitudinal (i.e., repeated measures), so the outcome, score (at each of the three time points), is nested within the individual. I am interested in the interaction between gender and happiness predicting score. id <- c(1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3) age <-

Hello ALL! I have a problem to plot factor (lets say gender) as a line, or at least both line and point, from ols model: ols1 <- ols(Y ~ gender, data=dat, x=T, y=T) plot(ols1, gender=NA, xlab="gender", ylab="Y", ylim=c(5,30), conf.int=FALSE) If I convert gender into discrete numeric predictor, and use forceLines=TRUE, plot is not nice and true, since it shows values