similar to: [LLVMdev] Missing common linkage

Hi All, I'm conducting a meta-analysis and have taken a data.frame with multiple rows per study (for each effect size) and performed a weighted average of effect size for each study. This results in a reduced # of rows. I am particularly interested in simply reducing the additional variables in the data.frame to the first row of the corresponding id variable. For example:

Dear list: I am trying to merge two files together from output I get based on the coef() command. Here is what I am running into. I have two simple linear mixed models > mod1.lme<-lme(math~year, data=sample, random=~year|childid/schoolid) > mod2.lme<-lme(math~year, data=sample, random=~year|childid) I then call the coefficients and store them in the following objects using >

Hi All, I am interested in printing column names without quotes and am struggling to do it properly. The tough part is that I am interested in using these column names for a function within a function (e.g., lm() within a wrapper function). Therefore, cat() doesnt seem appropriate and print() is not what I need. Ideas? # sample data mod1 <- rnorm(20, 10, 2) mod2 <- rnorm(20, 5, 1) dat

Hi All, I am interested in creating a function that will take x number of lm objects and automate the comparison of each model (using anova). Here is a simple example (the actual function will involve more than what Im presenting but is irrelevant for the example): # sample data: id<-rep(1:20) n<-c(10,20,13,22,28,12,12,36,19,12,36,75,33,121,37,14,40,16,14,20)

Dear Thierry, thank you for the quick reply. I have only one question about the approach you proposed. As you suggested, imagine that the model we end up after the model selection procedure is: mod2.1 <- lmer(dT_purs ~ T + Z + (1 +T+Z| subject), data =x, REML= FALSE) According to the common procedures specified in many manuals and recent papers, if I want to compute the p_values relative to

Dear Colleagues, I run this model: mod1 <- lmer(x~category+subcomp+category*subcomp+(1|id),data=impchiefsrm) obtain this summary result: Linear mixed-effects model fit by REML Formula: x ~ category + subcomp + category * subcomp + (1 | id) Data: impchiefsrm AIC BIC logLik MLdeviance REMLdeviance 4102 4670 -1954 3665 3908 Random effects: Groups Name Variance

Bother! This cold has made me accident-prone. I meant to hit Reply-all. Clarification below. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [R] Parameterization puzzle Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:10:03 +1200 From: Murray Jorgensen <maj at waikato.ac.nz> To: Prof Brian Ripley <ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk> References: <44C063E5.3020703 at waikato.ac.nz>

When I fit a multivariate linear model, and the formula is defined outside the call to lm(), the method summary.mlm() fails. This works well: > y <- matrix(rnorm(20),nrow=10) > x <- matrix(rnorm(10)) > mod1 <- lm(y~x) > summary(mod1) ... But this does not: > f <- y~x > mod2 <- lm(f) > summary(mod2) Error en object$call$formula[[2L]] <- object$terms[[2L]]

Hello, Any advice or pointers for implementing Sobel's test for mediation in 2-level model setting? For fitting the hierarchical models, I am using "lme4" but could also revert to "nlme" since it is a relatively simple varying intercept model and they yield identical estimates. I apologize for this is an R question with an embedded statistical question. I noticed that a

Dear List-members, I found a strange behaviour in the lqs function. Suppose I have the following data: y <- c(7.6, 7.7, 4.3, 5.9, 5.0, 6.5, 8.3, 8.2, 13.2, 12.6, 10.4, 10.8, 13.1, 12.3, 10.4, 10.5, 7.7, 9.5, 12.0, 12.6, 13.6, 14.1, 13.5, 11.5, 12.0, 13.0, 14.1, 15.1) x1 <- c(8.2, 7.6,, 4.6, 4.3, 5.9, 5.0, 6.5, 8.3, 10.1, 13.2, 12.6, 10.4, 10.8, 13.1, 13.3, 10.4, 10.5, 7.7, 10.0, 12.0,

Dear All, Let have 10 pair of observations, as shown below. ###################### x <- 1:10 y <- c(1,3,2,4,5,10,13,15,19,22) plot(x,y) ###################### Two fitted? models, with ranges of [1,5] and [5,10],?can be easily fitted separately by lm function as shown below: ####################### mod1 <- lm(y[1:5] ~ x[1:5]) mod2 <- lm(y[5:10] ~ x[5:10]) #######################

Dear Colleagues, I have scoured the help files and been unable to find an answer to my question. Please forgive me if I have missed something obvious. I have run the following two models, where "category" has 3 levels and "comp" has 8 levels: mod1 <- lmer(x~category+comp+(1|id),data=impchiefsrm) mod2 <- lmer(x~category+comp+category*comp+(1|id),data=impchiefsrm)

Consider the following example (based on an example in Pat Altham's GLM notes) pyears <- scan() 18793 52407 10673 43248 5710 28612 2585 12663 1462 5317 deaths <- scan() 2 32 12 104 28 206 28 186 31 102 Smoke <- gl(2,1,10,labels=c("No","Yes")) Age <- gl(5,2,10,labels=c("35-44","45-54","55-64","65-74","75-84"),

Hello all, I am using a glm() and would like to fix one of the regression coefficients to be a particular value and see what happens to the fit of the model. E.g.: mod1 <- glm(Y ~ X1 + X2,family='binomial') mod2 <- glm(Y~[fixed to 1.3]X1 + X2,family='binomial') The beta for X1 is freely estimated in mod1 but is constrained to be 1.3 in mod2. Is there a way to do this?

So it looks like the verifier doesn't catch this condition - I think it should. The attached program reproduces the problem - verification succeeds, but the linker fails with a type assertion. BTW, if no one has the bandwidth to work on this I'm willing to attempt a fix, assuming that you agree that the verifier should discover this condition. Michael Muller wrote: > >

Hi All, I was wondering if someone could help me to solve this issue with lmer. In order to understand the best mixed effects model to fit my data, I compared the following options according to the procedures specified in many papers (i.e. Baayen <http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDsQFjAA

Dear R Colleagues, I run the following two models: mod1 <- lmer(y ~ category + subcomp + (1 | id)) mod2 <- lmer(y ~ category + subcomp + category*subcomp + (1 | id) where: category has 4 possible values subcomp has 24 possible values id has approx 120 values (id is nested within category, and in unequal numbers--i.e., unbalanced) Then to look for differences in the models I run:

Hi, I'm trying to extract a histogram over the results from a bootstrap. However I keep receiving the error message "Error in hist.default(boot.lrtest$ll, breaks = "scott") : 'x' must be numeric". The bootstrap I'm running looks like: > boot.test <- function(data, indeces, maxit=20) { + y1 <- fit1+e1[indeces] + mod1 <- glm(y1 ~ X1-1, maxit=maxit) +

Hello, I'm using the "glmulti" package to run models of all the possible combinations of my variables. However, I am only interested in a few interactions between my variables. I have tried the equivalent of: mod1<-lm(y~a+b+c+a:b) glmulti(mod1, level=1) mod2<-lm(y~a+b+c+a:b) glmulti(mod2, level=2) and glmulti("y", c("a", "b", "c"),

Dear R-list, I would like to use the lattice library to show several groups on the same graph. Here's my example : ## the data f1 <- factor(c("mod1","mod2","mod3"),levels=c("mod1","mod2","mod3")) f1 <- rep(f1,3) f2 <-