similar to: Dispersion in summary.glm() with binomial & poisson link

Hello R users I like to extract z values for x1 and x2. I know how to extract coefficents using model$coef but I don't know how to extract z values for each of independent variable. I looked around using names(model) but I couldn't find how to extract z values. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks TM ######################################################### >summary(model) Call:

Hi all! I've got this error while running example(Glm) library("rms") > example(Glm) Glm> ## Dobson (1990) Page 93: Randomized Controlled Trial : Glm> counts <- c(18,17,15,20,10,20,25,13,12) Glm> outcome <- gl(3,1,9) Glm> treatment <- gl(3,3) Glm> f <- glm(counts ~ outcome + treatment, family=poisson()) Glm> f Call: glm(formula = counts ~

Hi all I am preparing a document using Sweave; a really useful tool. But I am having a problem. Consider this toy example Sweave file: \documentclass{article} \begin{document} <<echo=TRUE,results=verbatim>>= options(width=40) # Set width to 40 characters hide <- capture.output(example(glm)) # Create an example of the problem, but hide the output summary(glm.D93) #

There may be a bug in the anova.glm function. deathstar[32] R R : Copyright 2004, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing Version 2.0.1 (2004-11-15), ISBN 3-900051-07-0 R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. You are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type 'license()' or 'licence()' for distribution details. R is a collaborative project

This is a basics beginner question. I attempted fitting a a Poisson GLM to data that is non-integer ( I believe Poisson is suitable in this case, because it is modelling counts of infections, but the data collected are all non-negative numbers with 2 decimal places). My question is, since R doesn't return an error with this glm fitting, is it important that the data is non-integer. How does

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

Anyone know how to get p-values for the t-values from the coefficients produced in vglm? Attached is the code and output ? see comment added to output to show where I need p-values + print(paste("********** Using VGAM function gamma2 **********")) + modl2<- vglm(MidPoint~Count,gamma2,data=modl.subset,trace=TRUE,crit="c") + print(coef(modl2,matrix=TRUE))

I have been unsuccessful in extracting the dispersion parameter in SPLUS 6.1 using summary or summary.glm(modelobj$dispersion) from a glm object in which the family was set to quasi. This is the syntax given in the manual. I want to write a script to bootstrap the estimate of the dispersion parameter, but cannot seem to access that value. Any suggestions? Thanks, Ed ----------

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 +

Hi list, can anybody point me to the trick how glm is computing the dispersion parameter in quasi-poisson regression, eg. glm(...,family="quasipoisson")? Thanks &regards, Sven

Hi all, How is dispersion calculated within the glm function in R ? Cheers _________________________________________________________________ -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body",

Hello all: I frequently have glm models in which the residual variance is much lower than the residual degrees of freedom (e.g. Res.Dev=30.5, Res.DF = 82). Is it appropriate for me to use a quasipoisson error distribution and test it with an F distribution? It seems to me that I could stand to gain a much-reduced standard error if I let the procedure estimate my dispersion factor (which

Hi Community, I'm trying to reconcile Cook's Distances computed in glm. The following snippet of code shows that the Cook's Distances contours on the plot of Residuals v Leverage do not seem to be the same as the values produced by cooks.distance() or in the Cook's Distance against observation number plot. counts <- c(18,17,15,20,10,20,25,13,12) outcome <- gl(3,1,9)

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

I've been poking around with GLMs (on which I am *not* an expert) on behalf of a student, particularly binomial (standard logit link) nested models with overdispersion. I have one possible bug to report (but I'm not confident enough to be *sure* it's a bug); one comment on the general inconsistency that seems to afflict the various functions for dealing with overdispersion in GLMs

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

I'm writing functions that need to behave differently for GLMs like binomial and Poisson with fixed deviance, and those like normal or gamma or quasi where the deviance is estimated from the data. Given a glm object, is there a simple way to tell this directly, or do I have to look at the name of the family? Duncan Murdoch

When using test="F" in stat.anova() / anova.glm(), R uses the assumed dispersion parameter for the specified family (e.g. scale=1 for binomial), while S-PLUS automatically uses the estimated dispersion parameter (residual deviance/residual df). I think there are good reasons for the behavior in R -- it fits with the "you get what you actually asked for" philosophy -- and

I am running 9 negative binomial regressions with count data. The nine models use 9 different dependent variables - items of a clinical screening instrument - and use the same set of 5 predictors. Goal is to find out whether these predictors have differential effects on the items. Due to various reasons, one being that I want to avoid overfitting models, I need to employ identical types of

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