similar to: Differences between glmmPQL and lmer and AIC calculation

Hi, I have a spatial data set with many observations (~50,000) and would like to keep as much data as possible. There is spatial dependence, so I am attempting a mixed model in R with a spherical variogram defining the correlation as a function of distance between points. I have tried nlme, lme, glmmML, and glmmPQL. In all case the matrix needed (seems to be (N^2)/2 - N) is too large for my

>On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Bernd Weiss wrote: > >> I am trying to replicate some multilevel models with binary outcomes >> using R's "lmer" and "glmmPQL" and Stata's gllmm, respectively. > >That's not going to happen as they are not using the same criteria. the glmmPQL and lmer both use the PQL method to do it ,so can we get the same result by

I have been looking into both of these approaches to conducting a GLMM, and want to make sure I understand model specification in each. In particular - after looking at Bates' Rnews article and searching through the help archives, I am unclear on the specification of nested factors in lmer. Do the following statements specify the same mode within each approach? m1 = glmmPQL(RICH ~ ZONE,

This is a summary and extension of the thread "GLMM (lme4) vs. glmmPQL output" http://maths.newcastle.edu.au/~rking/R/help/04/01/0180.html In the new revision (#Version: 0.4-7) of lme4 the standard errors are close to those of the 4 other methods. Thanks to Douglas Bates, Saikat DebRoy for the revision, and to G?ran Brostr?m who run a simulation. In response to my first posting, Prof.

Dear all, I am trying to replicate some multilevel models with binary outcomes using R's "lmer" and "glmmPQL" and Stata's gllmm, respectively. The data can be found at <http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ahf34/xerop.dta>. The relevant Stata output can be found at <http://www.uni- koeln.de/~ahf34/stataoutput.txt>. First, you will find the unconditional model,

Dear list, I am having some problems with extracting Variance Components from a random-effects model: I am running a simple random-effects model using lme: model<-lme(y~1,random=~1|groupA/groupB) which returns the output for the StdDev of the Random effects, and model AIC etc as expected. Until yesterday I was using R v. 2.0, and had no problem in calling the variance components of the

I'm trying to fit a generalized mixed effects model to a data set where each subject has paired categorical responses y (so I'm trying to use a binomial logit link). There are about 183 observations and one explanatory factor x. I'm trying to fit something like: (lmer(y~x+(1|subject))) I also tried fitting the same type of model using glmmPQL from MASS. In both cases, I get a

Hello, I'm running a simulation study of a multilevel model with binary response using the binomial probit link. It is a random intercept and random slope model. GLMMPQL and lmer fail to converge on a *significant* portion of the *generated* datasets, while MlWin gives reasonable estimates on those datasets. This is unacceptable. Does anyone has similar experiences? Regards, Roel de

Greetings, everyone. I've been trying to analyze bird nest survival data using generalized linear mixed models (because we documented several consecutive nesting attempts by the same individuals; i.e. repeated measures data) and have been unable to persuade the various GLMM models to work with my user-defined link function. Actually, glmmPQL seems to work, but as I want to evaluate a suite of

Hello all, I would like to fit a mixed effects model, but my response is of the negative binomial (or overdispersed poisson) family. The only (?) package that looks like it can do this is glmm.ADMB (but it cannot run on Mac OS X - please correct me if I am wrong!) [1] I think that glmmML {glmmML}, lmer {Matrix}, and glmmPQL {MASS} do not provide this "family" (i.e. nbinom, or

Dear All, I wonder if there is a way to fit a generalized linear mixed models (for repeated binomial data) via a direct Maximum Likelihood Approach. The "glmm" in the "repeated" package (Lindsey), the "glmmPQL" in the "MASS" package (Ripley) and "glmmGIBBS" (Myle and Calyton) are not using the full maximum likelihood as I understand. The

I am analysing binomial data using a generalised mixed effects model. I understand that if I use glmmPQL it is not appropriate to compare AIC values to obtain a minimum adequate model. I am assuming that this means it is also inappropriate to use AIC values from lmer since, when analysing binomial data, lmer also uses PQL methods. However, I wasn't sure so please could somebody clarify

Dear R users, I am estimating Poisson mixed models using glmmPQL (MASS) and lmer (lme4). We know that glmmPQL do not provide the correct loglikelihood for such models (it gives the loglike of a 'pseudo' or working linear mixed model). I would like to know how the loglike is calculated by lmer. A minor question is: why do glmmPQL and lmer give different degrees-of-freedom for the same

R, I want to get means and confidence limits on the original scale for the treatment effect after running a mixed model. The data are: response<-c(16,4,5,8,41,45,10,15,11,3,1,64,41,23,18,16,10,22,2,3)

Dear R HELP, ABOUT glmmPQL and the anova command. Here is an example of a repeated-measures ANOVA focussing on the way starling masses vary according to (i) roost situation and (ii) time (two time points only). library(nlme);library(MASS)

Hi R-users,   I intend to apply a mixed model on a set of longitudinal data, with a negative binomial distributed dependent variable, and after following the discussions on R help list I saw that more experienced people recommended using lmer (from lme4 pack), glmmPQL (from MASS) or glmm.admb (from glmmADMB pack)     My first problem: yesterday this syntax was ok, now I get this weird message (I

Hello, I am using the R function glmmPQL to fit a logistic GLMM, with weights. I am finding that I get fairly different parameter estimates in glmmPQL from fitting the full dataset (with no "weight" statement) and an equivalent, shorter dataset with the weights statement. I am using the weights statement in the 'glmmPQL' function exactly as in the 'glm' function. I

Hello, I have a problem concerning estimation of GLMM. I used methods from 3 different packages (see program). I would expect similar results for glmm and glmmML. The result differ in the estimated standard errors, however. I compared the results to MASS, 4th ed., p. 297. The results from glmmML resemble the given result for 'Numerical integration', but glmm output differs. For the

Dear R-Helpers, I want to compare the results of outputs from glmmPQL and lmer analyses. I could do this if I could extract the coefficients and standard errors from the summaries of the lmer models. This is easy to do for the glmmPQL summaries, using > glmm.fit <- try(glmmPQL(score ~ x*type, random = ~ 1 | subject, data = df, family = binomial), TRUE) > summary(glmmPQL.fit)$tTable

Dear R users I have built several glmm models using glmmPQL in the following structure: m1<-glmmPQL(dev~env*har*treat+dens, random = ~1|pop/rep, family = Gamma) (full script below, data attached) I have tried all the methods I can find to obtain some sort of model fit score or to compare between models using following the deletion of terms (i.e. AIC, logLik, anova.lme(m1,m2)), but I