similar to: R^2 analogue in polr() and prerequisites for polr()

Dear all, I've replicated the cheese tasting example on p175 of GLM's by McCullagh and Nelder. This is a 4 treatment (rows) by 9 ordinal response (cols) table. Here's my simple code: #### cheese library(MASS) options(contrasts = c("contr.treatment", "contr.poly")) y = c(0,0, 1, 7, 8,8,19, 8,1, 6,9,12,11, 7,6, 1, 0,0, 1,1, 6, 8,23,7,

I am new to R, ordered logistic regression, and polr. The "Examples" section at the bottom of the help page for polr<http://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-patched/library/MASS/html/polr.html>(that fits a logistic or probit regression model to an ordered factor response) shows options(contrasts = c("contr.treatment", "contr.poly")) house.plr <- polr(Sat ~ Infl +

I want to fit a multinomial model with logit link. For example let this matrix to be analyzed: male female aborted factor 10 12 1 1.2 14 14 4 1.3 15 12 3 1.4 (this is an example, not the true data which are far more complex...) I suppose the correct function to analyze these data is polr from MASS library. The data have been

Hi, I'm getting an error message using polr(): Error in optim(start, fmin, gmin, method = "BFGS", hessian = Hess, ...) : initial value in 'vmmin' is not finite The outcome variable is ordinal and factored, and the independant variable is continuous. I've checked the source code for both polr() and optim() and can't find any variable called

Dear all, I have used polr in MASS but I am uncertain about the summary(polr.object) interpretation and would be happy for help on that. This is my summary: > summary(shade.polr) Re-fitting to get Hessian Call: polr(formula = as.ordered(shade) ~ as.factor(objekt), data = sof, weights = as.numeric(frek)) Coefficients: Value Std. Error t value 2.1699520 0.3681840 5.8936612

Dear friends. Do Polr in Mass change the sign of the coefficients ? Example (McCullagh 1980) options(contrasts=c("contr.treatment","contr.poly")) library(Mass) freq <- c(19,29,24,497,560,269) yy <- ordered(gl(3,1,6)) z4 <- polr(yy~x,weights=freq) > z4 Call: polr(formula = yy ~ x, weights = freq) Coefficients: x2 -0.6026492 Intercepts: 1|2

In polr.R the (several) functions gmin and fmin contain the code > theta <- beta[pc + 1L:q] > gamm <- c(-100, cumsum(c(theta[1L], exp(theta[-1L]))), 100) That's bad. There's no reason to suppose beta[pc+1L] is larger than -100 or that the cumulative sum is smaller than 100. For practical datasets those assumptions are frequently violated, causing the

Dear community, I am currently trying to fit an ordinal logistic regression model with the polr function. I often get the same error message : "attempt to find suitable starting values failed", for example with : require(MASS) data(iris) polr(Species~Sepal.Length+Sepal.Width+Petal.Length+Petal.Width,iris) (I know the response variable Species should be nominal but I do as levels

Dear R helpers, I would like to ask why polr occasionally generates results that look very odd. I have been trying to compare the power of proportional odds logistic regression with the Wilcoxon test. I generated random samples, applied both tests and extracted and compared the p-values, thus:- library(MASS) c1=rep(NA,100); c2=c1 for (run in 1:100) { dat=c(rbinom(20,12,0.65),rbinom(20,12,0.35))

Dear Sir, I get an error message when I use polr() in MASS package. My data is "ord.dat". I made "y" a factor. y y1 y2 x lx 1 0 0 0 3.2e-02 -1.49485 2 0 0 0 3.2e-02 -1.49485 3 0 0 0 1.0e-01 -1.00000 4 0 0 0 1.0e-01 -1.00000 5 0 0 0 3.2e-01 -0.49485 6 0 0 0 3.2e-01 -0.49485 7 1 1 0 1.0e+00 0.00000 8 0 0 0 1.0e+00 0.00000 9 1 1 0

Greetings: I'm running R-1.9.1 on Fedora Core 2 Linux. I tested a proportional odds logistic regression with MASS's polr and Design's lrm. Parameter estimates between the 2 are consistent, but the standard errors are quite different, and the conclusions from the t and Wald tests are dramatically different. I cranked the "abstol" argument up quite a bit in the polr

In Venables \& Ripley 3rd edition (p. 231) the proportional odds model is described as: logit(p<=k) = zeta_k + eta but polr apparently thinks there is a minus in front of eta, as is apprent below. Is this a bug og a feature I have overlooked? Here is the naked code for reproduction, below the results. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- version

Hi all!! I am using a proportinal odds model to study some ordered categorical data. I am trying to predict one ordered categorical variable taking into account only another categorical variable. I am using polr from the R MASS library. It seems to work ok, but I'm still getting familiar and I don't know how to assess goodness of fit. I have this output, when using response ~ independent

Hi all!! I am using a proportinal odds model to study some ordered categorical data. I am trying to predict one ordered categorical variable taking into account only another categorical variable. I am using polr from the R MASS library. It seems to work ok, but I'm still getting familiar and I don't know how to assess goodness of fit. I have this output, when using response ~ independent

Dear all, I get an error message when I use polr() in MASS. These are my data: skugg grupp frekv 4 1 gr3 0 5 2 gr3 3 6 3 gr3 6 10 1 gr5 1 11 2 gr5 12 12 3 gr5 1 > > summary(polr(skugg ~ grupp, weights=frekv, data= skugg.cpy1.dat)) Error in optim(start, fmin, gmin, method = "BFGS", hessian = Hess, ...) :

Dear All, I have been struggling to understand why for the housing data in MASS library R and stata give coef. estimates that are really different. I also tried to come up with many many examples myself (see below, of course I did not have the set.seed command included) and all of my `random' examples seem to give verry similar output. For the housing data, I have changed the data into numeric

Dear all, It appears that MASS::polr() and Design::lrm() return the same point estimates but different st.errs when fitting proportional odds models, grade<-c(4,4,2,4,3,2,3,1,3,3,2,2,3,3,2,4,2,4,5,2,1,4,1,2,5,3,4,2,2,1) score<-c(525,533,545,582,581,576,572,609,559,543,576,525,574,582,574,471,595, 557,557,584,599,517,649,584,463,591,488,563,553,549) library(MASS) library(Design)

Hi everyone, I'm trying to understand some R output here for ordinal regression. I have some integer data called "A" split up into 3 ordinal categories, top, middle and bottom, T, M and B respectively. I have to explain this output to people who have a very poor idea about statistics and just need to make sure I know what I'm talking about first. Here's the output:

Hi, I have a dataset that I am trying to analyze and plot as an ordered logistic regression (y = ordinal categories 1-3, x = continuous variable with values 3-9). First is a problem with cdplot: Produces a beautiful plot, with the "right" trend, but my independent factor values are transformed. The factor has values from 3-9, but the plot produces an x-axis with values from 20-140.

Dear R-Help listers, I am trying to estimate an proportional odds logistic regression model (or ordered logistic regression) and then make predictions by supplying a hypothetical x vector. However, somehow this does not work. I guess I must have missed something here. I first used the polr function in the MASS package, and I create a data frame and supply it to the predict function (see below):