similar to: Calculating dispersion in glm

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

Dear list, I'm trying to mimic the analysis of Wedderburn (1974) as cited by McCullagh and Nelder (1989) on p.328-332. This is the leaf-blotch on barley example, and the data is available in the `faraway' package. Wedderburn suggested using the variance function mu^2(1-mu)^2. This variance function isn't readily available in R's `quasi' family object, but it seems to me

I have been implementing a proposal of Jim Lindsey for glm(.) to return AIC values, and print.glm(.) and print.summary.glm(.) printing them.... however: >>>>> "Jim" == Jim Lindsey <jlindsey@luc.ac.be> writes: Jim> The problem still remains of getting the correct AIC when the user Jim> wants the scale parameter to be fixed. (The calculation should

I contacted John Fox about this first, because parts of the file are attributed to him. He says that he didn't write rstandard.glm(), and suggests asking r-devel. As it stands, rstandard.glm() has summary(model)$dispersion outside the sqrt(), while in rstandard.lm(), the sd is already sqrt()ed. This seems to follow stdres() in VR/MASS/R/stdres.R. Of course for the c("poisson",

Hello, I have a question about the add1() function and quasilikelihoods for GLMs. I am fitting quasi-Poisson models using glm(, family = quasipoisson). Technically, with the quasilikelihood approach the deviance does not have the interpretation as a likelihood-based measure of sample information. Functions such as stepAIC() cannot be used. The function add1() returns the change in the scaled

Greetings, everybody. Can I ask some glm questions? 1. How do you find out -2*lnL(saturated model)? In the output from glm, I find: Null deviance: which I think is -2[lnL(null) - lnL(saturated)] Residual deviance: -2[lnL(fitted) - lnL(saturated)] The Null model is the one that includes the constant only (plus offset if specified). Right? I can use the Null and Residual deviance to

Dear R users, I am trying to fit a glm with a distribution free family, link = log and variance = constant*mu. I guess I have to use the quasi family but the choices of variance are restricted to constant or mu or mu^2..., I don't know the way to choose the variance that I need, i.e. constant*mu. If you have any ideas or advice, please tell me. Thanks, Laetitia Mestdagh Laetitia Mestdagh

I am running a binomial glm with response variable the no of mites of two species y->cbind(mitea,miteb) against two continuous variables (temperature and predatory mites) - see below. My model shows overdispersion as the residual deviance is 48.81 on 5 degrees of freedom. If I use quasibinomial to account for overdispersion the dispersion parameter estimate is 2501139, which seems

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

Craig A Faulhaber wrote: >I am interested in using a generalized linear mixed model with data > that best fits a beta distribution (i.e., the data is bounded between > 0 and 1 but is not binomial). .. >For clarification, here's what I'm trying to model: >I have a beta-distributed response variable (y). I have a fixed-effect >explanatory variable (treatment),

Hello, I have a question regarding estimation of the dispersion parameter (theta) for generalized linear models with the negative binomial error structure. As I understand, there are two main methods to fit glm's using the nb error structure in R: glm.nb() or glm() with the negative.binomial(theta) family. Both functions are implemented through the MASS library. Fitting the model using these

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, I am performing glm with binomial family and my data show slight overdispersion (HF<1.5). Nevertheless, in order to take into account for this heterogeneity though weak, I use F-test rather than Chi-square (Krackow & Tkadlec, 2001). But surprisingly, outputs of this two tests are exactly similar. What is the reason and how can I scale the output by overdispersion ?? Thank you,

Hello, I have found a problem with using the glm function with a gamma family. I have a vector of data, assumed to be generated by a gamma distribution. The parameters of this gamma distribution are estimated in two ways (i) using the glm() function, (ii) "by hand", using the optim() function. I find that the -2*likelihood at the maximum found by (i) is substantially larger than that

Hello, The estimate of glm dispersion can be based on the deviance or on the Pearson statistic. I have compared output from R glm() to another statastical package and it appears that R uses the Pearson statistic. I was wondering if it is possible to make use R the deviance instead by modifying the glm(...) function? Thanks for your attention. Kind regards, Robin Smit This e-mail and its

Sorry about re-posting this, it never went out to the mailing list when I posted this to r-help forum on Nabble and was pending for a few days, now that I am subscribe to the mailing list I hope that this goes out: I've been a viewer of this forum for a while and it has helped out a lot, but this is my first time posting something. I am running glm models for richness and abundances. For

I just ran example(glm) and happened to notice that models based on the Gamma distribution gives a t test, while the Poisson models give a z test. Why? Both are b/s.e., aren't they? I can't find documentation supporting the claim that the distribution is more like t in one case than another, except in the Gaussian case (where it really is t). Aren't all of the others approximations

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

Dear all, I am new to R and my question may be trivial to you... I am doing a GLM with binomial errors to compare proportions of species in different categories of seed sizes (4 categories) between 2 sites. In the model summary the residual deviance is much higher than the degree of freedom (Residual deviance: 153.74 on 4 degrees of freedom) and even after correcting for overdispersion by

Hi, I had a logit regression, but don't really know how to handle the "Warning message: non-integer #successes in a binomial glm! in: eval(expr, envir, enclos)" problem. I had the same logit regression without weights and it worked out without the warning, but I figured it makes more sense to add the weights. The weights sum up to one. Could anyone give me some hint? Thanks a lot!