similar to: weighted.residuals() ?

Dear all, I am running a logistic regression and this is the output: glm(formula = educationUniv ~ brncntr, family = binomial) Deviance Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max # ???? ????? ?? ???????? -0.8825 -0.7684 -0.7684 1.5044 1.6516 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) -1.06869 0.01155 -92.487 <2e-16 *** brncntrNo

Is there any reason that rstandard.glm doesn't have a "pearson" option? And if not, can it be added? Background: I'm currently teaching an undergrad/grad-service course from Agresti's "Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (2nd edn)" and deviance residuals are not used in the text. For now I'll just provide the students with a simple function to use, but I

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 +

Full_Name: Henric Nilsson Version: 2.2.0 (2005-06-20 r34776) OS: Windows 2000 Submission from: (NULL) (213.115.23.26) The help page for `weighted.residuals' states that the function can be used with both `lm' and `glm' objects. However, it's unclear what's meant by the following passage "Weighted residuals are the usual residuals Ri, multiplied by wi^0.5, where wi are

I propose the following enhancements and changes to plot.lm(), the most important of which is the addition of a Residuals vs Leverage plot. (1) A residual versus leverage plot has been added, available by specifying which = 5, and not included as one of the default plots. Contours of Cook's distance are included, by default at values of 0.5 and 1.0. The labeled points, if any, are those

Hi Peter and others, If it helps, I wrote a small function glm.scoretest() for the statmod package on CRAN to compute score tests from glm fits. The score test for adding a covariate, or any set of covariates, can be extracted very neatly from the standard glm output, although you probably already know that. Regards Gordon --------------------------------------------- Professor Gordon K

Dear R-users, I would like to show you a simple example that gives an overview of one of my current issue. Although my working setting implies a different parametric model (which cannot be framed in the glm), I guess that what I'll get from the following example it would help for the next steps. Anyway here it is. Firstly I simulated from a series of exposures, a series of deaths (given a

Hello: I am trying to understand why glm() does not replicate the results in Dobson, "Introduction to Generalized Linear Models," pp. 17-20. I set up the following model. The variable CONDT is assumed as Poisson and the objective is to estimate the expected value. The data (chronic medical conditions among women in Australia) is as follows: CONDT <- c(0, 1, 1, 0, 2, 3, 0, 1,

R version 1.3.0 OS: SunOS 5.7, but I think the same problem occurs with Windows An incorrect formula seems to be used to calculate the pearson residuals for a generalized linear model with a binomial response. Here is a simple program which gives (a) the pearson residuals calculated directly, (b) the pearson residuals from glm, and (c) the deviance residuals from glm. The first and last

Dear all, I noticed the following behaviour of plot.lm: > fm1 <- lm(time~dist, data=hills, weights=c(0,0,rep(1,33))) > par(mfrow=c(2,2)) > plot(fm1) Warning messages: 1: longer object length is not a multiple of shorter object length in: res/(sd * (1 - hat)) 2: longer object length is not a multiple of shorter object length in: (res/(sd * (1 - hat)))^2 * hat which seems to be

Is it generally known/has it been previously discussed here that the $aic() component in GLM-family objects (e.g. results of binomial(), poisson(), etc.) does not as implemented actually return the AIC, but rather -2*log-likelihood + 2*(model_has_scale_parameter) ? Can anyone in this forum gauge how a documentation patch would be received? This behaviour does not seem to be documented in ?family

G'day all, I had a look at the GLM code of R (1.4.1) and I believe that there are problems with the function "glm.fit" that may bite in rare circumstances. Note, I have no data set with which I ran into trouble. This report is solely based on having a look at the code. Below I append a listing of the glm.fit function as produced by my system. I have added line numbers so that I

A maybe trivial and stupid question: In the case of a lm or glm fit, it is quite informative (to me) to have a look to the null deviance and the residual deviance of a model. This is generally provided in the print method or the summary, eg: Null Deviance: 658.8 Residual Deviance: 507.3 and (a bit simpled minded) I like to think that the proportion of deviance 'explained' by the

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 All, I have a problem with weighted logistic regression. I have a number of SNPs and a case/control scenario, but not all genotypes are as "guaranteed" as others, so I am using weights to downsample the importance of individuals whose genotype has been heavily "inferred". My data is quite big, but with a dummy example: > status <- c(1,1,1,0,0) > SNPs <-

Dear R Users, I suppose this is a school boy question, but here it is anyway. I'm trying to re-create the residuals for a poisson GLM with simulated data; x<-rpois(1000,5) model<-glm(x~1,poisson) my.resids<-(log(x)- summary(model)$coefficients[1]) plot(my.resids,residuals(model)) This shows that my calculated residuals (my.resids) are not the same as residuals(model). p 65 of

Hi, is there a possibility to calculate the different "types" of residuals directly using the multinom function from MASS as it is possible for the functions gam, glm using type="deviance" or "working" or "pearson" or "response"? I tried it but got always the "response" type, I guess. thanx Matthias

Dear all, the application of the function rstandard() in the base package to a glm object does not produce residuals standardized to have variance one: the reason is that the deviance residuals are divided by the dispersion estimate and not by the square root of the estimate for the dispersion. Should the function not be changed to produce residuals with a variance about 1? R 1.8.1 on

Hi all I'm getting a NaN returned on using dffits, as explained below. To me, there seems no obvious (or non-obvious reason for that matter) reason why a NaN appears. Before I start digging further, can anyone see why dffits might be failing? Is there a problem with the data? Consider: # Load data dep <-

I have a puzzle as to how R is computing Cook's distance in weighted linear regression. In this case cook's distance should be given not as in OLS case by h_ii*r_i^2/(1-hii)^2 divided by k*s^2 (1) (where r is plain unadjusted residual, k is number of parameters in model, etc. ) but rather by w_ii*h_ii*r_i^2/(1-hii)^2 divided by k*s^2,