similar to: GlmmPQL with binomial errors

Dear all, I have two questions concerning model simplification in GlmmPQL, for for random and fixed effects: 1. Fixed effects: I don't know if I can simply specify anova(model) and trust the table that comes up with the p value for each variable in the fixed effects formula. I have read that the only way to test for fixed effects is to do approximate wald tests based on the standard errors

Dear R-users, I have conducted an experiment with a 2*2*2 factorial within-subjects design. All factors are binary and the dependent measure is a frequency of successes between 0 and 4. Treating this as a normally distributed variable, I would perform a repeated-measures ANOVA as follows: > aov(y ~ A*B*C + Error(subj/(A+B+C))) but since the distribution of the dependent measure is clearly

I am using the 'glmmPQL function in the 'MASS' library to fit a mixed effects logistic regression model to simulated data. I am conducting a series of simulations, and with certain simulated datasets, estimation of the random effects logistic regression model unexpectedly terminates. I receive the following error message from R: Error in lme.formula(fixed=zz + arm.long,random=~1 |

Hello All, I have a question regarding how glmmPQL should be specified. Which of these two is correct? summary(fm.3 <- glmmPQL(cbind(response, 100 - response) ~ expt, data = data.1, random = ~ 1 | subject, family = binomial)) summary(fm.4 <- glmmPQL(response ~ expt, data = data.2, random = ~ 1 | subject, family =

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

Hi, all, When running glmmPQL(), I keep getting errors like Error: cannot allocate vector of size 61965 Kb Execution halted This is R-1.7.1. The data set consists of about 11,000 binary responses from 16 subjects. The model is fixed = SonResp ~ (ordered (Stop) + ordered (Son)) * StopResp, random = ~ 1 + (ordered (Stop) + ordered (Son)) * StopResp | Subj family = binomial (link =

I'm a bit puzzled by how to write out additive random effects in glmmPQL. In my situation, I have a factorial design on two (categorical) random factors, A and B. At each combination, I have a binary response, y, and two binary fixed covariates, C and D. If everything were fixed, I would use glm(y ~ A + B + C + D, family = binomial) My first thought was to use glmmPQL(y ~ A + B, random

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

Dear R Community, I?m relatively new in the field of R and I hope someone of you can help me to solve my nerv-racking problem. For my Master thesis I collected some behavioral data of fish using acoustic telemetry. The aim of the study is to compare two different groups of fish (coded as 0 and 1 which should be the dependent variable) based on their swimming activity, habitat choice, etc.

I fit the following model using glmmPQL from MASS: fit.glmmPQL <- glmmPQL(ifelse(class=="Disease",1,0)~age+x1+x2,random=~1|subject,family=binomial) summary(fit.glmmPQL) The response is paired (pairing denoted by subject), although some subjects only have one response. Also, there is a perfect positive correlation between the paired responses. x1 and x2 can and do differ within each

Dear listers, glmmPQL (package MASS) is given to work by repeated call to lme. In the classical outputs glmmPQL the Variance Structure is given as " fixed weights, Formula: ~invwt". The script shows that the function varFixed() is used, though the place where 'invwt' is defined remains unclear to me. I wonder if there is an easy way to specify another variance

Dear all, for a cross-validation I have to use predict.glmmPQL() , where the formula of the corresponding glmmPQL call is not given explicitly, but constructed using as.formula. However, this does not work as expected: x1<-rnorm(100); x2<-rbinom(100,3,0.5); y<-rpois(100,2) mydata<-data.frame(x1,x2,y) library(MASS) # works as expected model1<-glmmPQL(y~x1, ~1 | factor(x2),

Hi ! I try to compare some models obtained from glmmPQL. model1 <- glmmPQL(y~red*yellow+I(red^2)+I(yellow^2)+densite8+I(densite8^2)+freq8_4 +I(freq8_4^2), random=~1|num, binomial); model2 <- glmmPQL(y~red*yellow+I(red^2)+I(yellow^2)+densite8+I(densite8^2)+freq8_4 , random=~1|num, binomial); anova(model1, model2) here is the answer : Erreur dans anova.lme(model1, model2) : Objects must

[I think I've seen this reported before but can't locate it any more. I believe this oddity (glitch? feature?) is behind a query that Jean-Baptiste Ferdy asked a year ago <http://finzi.psych.upenn.edu/Rhelp08/2008-October/176449.html>] It appears that glmmPQL looks in the global workspace, not within the data frame specified by the "data" argument, for the variables

hello all, i'm an R newbie struggling a bit with the glmmPQL function (from the nlme pack). i think i've managed to run the model successfully, but can't seem to plot the resulting function. plot(glmmPQL(...)) plots the residuals rather than the model... i know this should be basic, but i can't seem to figure it out. many thanks in advance. j -- View this message in context:

I have a longitudinal data analysis project. There are 10 observations on each of 15 units, and I'm estimating this with randomly varying intercepts along with an AR1 correction for the error terms within units. There is no correlation across units. Blundering around in R for a long time, I found that for linear/gaussian models, I can use either the MASS method glmmPQL (thanks to

Hello Folks- Is there a way to create confidence bands with 'glmmPQL' ??? I am performing a stroke study for Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. I am trying to decide a way to best plot the model which we created with the glmmPQL function in R. I would like to plot my actual averaged data points within 95 % confidence intervals from the model. Plotting the model is easy,

Hi, In glmmPQL in the MASS library, the function uses repeated calls to the function lme(), using ML. Does anyone know how you can change this to REML? I know that in lme(), the default is actually set to REML and you can also specify this as 'method=REML' or 'method'ML' but this isn't applicable to glmmPQL(). I'd appreciate any help or advice! Thanks, Emma

Hello, currently I am trying to fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmmPQL function in the MASS package. I am working with the data provided by the book from Heck, Thomas and Tabata (2012) - https://www.routledge.com/Multilevel-Modeling-of-Categorical-Outcomes-Using-IBM-SPSS/Heck-Thomas-Tabata/p/book/9781848729568 I was wondering, which variance-covariance structure the glmmPQL

Hello R users, I am trying to run a model with a binary response variable (nesting success: 0 failure, 1 success) and 8 fixed terms. Nesting success was examined in 72 cases in 34 territories (TER) during a 6 study years. Territories are nested within 14 patches (PATCH). I want to run a model taking into account these nested factors and repeated observation. To do this, I assume that the best