similar to: contrasts in a type III anova

Hi! I would like to perform an F-Test over more than one variable within a generalized mixed model with Gamma-distribution and log-link function. For this purpose, I use the package mgcv. Similar tests may be done using the function "anova", as for example in the case of a normal distributed response. However, if I do so, the error message "error in eval(expr, envir, enclos) :

Ted Harding said: > I can get the estimated RRs from > RRs <- exp(summary(GLM)$coef[,1]) > but do not see how to implement confidence intervals based > on "robust error variances" using the output in GLM. Thanks for the link to the data. Here's my best guess. If you use the following approach, with the HC0 type of robust standard errors in the

This is a question regarding the 'regTermTest' function in the 'survey' package. Imagine Z as a three level factor variable, and code ZB and ZC as the two corresponding dummy variables. X is a continuous variable. In a 'glm' of Y on Z and X, say, how do the two test specifications test.terms = c("ZB:X","ZC:X") # and test.terms = ~ ZB:X + ZC:X in

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

Problems with predict and lines in plotting binomial glm Dear R-helpers I have found quite a lot of tips on how to work with glm through this mailing list, but still have a problem that I can't solve. I have got a data set of which the x-variable is count data and the y-variable is proportional data, and I want to know what the relationship between the variables are. The data was

Dear all, I am comparing logistic regression models to evaluate if one predictor explains additional variance that is not yet explained by another predictor. As far as I understand Baron and Li describe how to do this, but my question is now: how do I report this in an article? Can anyone recommend a particular article that shows a concrete example of how the results from te following simple

dear list! i have run several glm analysises to estimate a mean rate of dung decay for independent trials. i would like to compare these results statistically but can't find any solution. the glm calls are: dung.glm1<-glm(STATE~DAYS, data=o_cov, family="binomial(link="logit")) dung.glm2<-glm(STATE~DAYS, data=o_cov_T12, family="binomial(link="logit")) as

Hi all, In a simulation context, I'm applying some my function, "myfun" say, to a list of glm obj, "list.glm": >length(list.glm) #number of samples simulated [1] 1000 >class(list.glm[[324]]) #any component of the list [1] "glm" "lm" >length(list.glm[[290]]$y) #sample size [1] 1000 Because length(list.glm) and the sample size are rather large,

This is a question about removing the intercept in a binomial glm() model with categorical predictors. V&R (3rd Ed. Ch7) and Chambers & Hastie (1993) were very helpful but I wasn't sure I got all the answers. In a simplistic example suppose I want to explore how disability (3 levels, profound, severe, and mild) affects the dichotomized outcome. The glm1 model (see below) is

Dear Listers, If I have several glm objects with names glm1, glm2.... and want to apply new data to these objects. Instead of typing "predict(glm1, newdata)..." 100 times, is there way I could do so in a loop? Thank you so much! wensui [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

I am encountering an error when I attempt to reference a glm model within a function. The function uses the segmented.glm command (package = segmented). Within the segmented.glm command one specifies an object, in this case a logistic regression model, and specifies a starting threshold term (psi). I believe this is an environment problem, but I do not have a solution. Any assistance

Hi useRs, I'm trying for the first time to use a sem. The model finally runs, but gives a warning saying : "In sem.default(ram = ram, S = S, N = N, param.names = pars, var.names = vars, : Could not compute QR decomposition of Hessian. Optimization probably did not converge. " I found in R-help some posts on this warning, but my attemps to modify the code didn't change

Dear R-List users, Can anyone explain exactly the difference between Weights options in lm glm and gls? I try the following codes, but the results are different. > lm1 Call: lm(formula = y ~ x) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.1183 7.3075 > lm2 Call: lm(formula = y ~ x, weights = W) Coefficients: (Intercept) x 0.04193 7.30660 > lm3 Call:

I large datset that includes subjects(ID), Dates and events that need to be counted.  Not every date includes an event, and I need to only count one event per 30days, per subject.  So in essence, I need to create a 30-day "black out" period during which time an event cannot be "counted" for each subject.  The reason is that a rule has been set up, whereby a subject can only be

I have a habtm relationship like the following: Automobile <--> Options What I want to do is when an option is deleted, make sure that there are no Automobiles that still have that option. It seems simple enough, but I am having a tough time with it. I believe Rails automagically deletes the relationships when the automobile is deleted, but not the other way around. Any help would

I am using R 2.1.1 under Mac OS 10.3.9. Two related problems (see notes 1. and 2. below) are illustrated by results of the following: y <- rnorm(10) x <- z <- 1:10 is.na(x[9]) <- TRUE lm0 <- lm(y ~ 1) lm1 <- lm(y ~ 1, weights = rep(1, 10)) add1(lm0, scope = ~ x) ## works ok add1(lm1, scope = ~ x) ## error lm2 <- lm(y ~ 1, offset = 1:10) add1(lm0, scope = ~ z) ##

David, Thanks. The reason add1.lm (and drop1.lm) do not support offsets is that lm did not when they were written, and the person who added offsets to lm did not change them. (I do wish they had not added an offset arg and just used the formula as in S's glm.) That is easy to add. For the other point, some care is needed if 'x' is supplied and the upper scope reduces the number

I just noticed the following curious behavior when using newhidups with upsdrvctl and two different USB devices: My ups.conf contains two devices, both using newhidups: [belkinusb] driver = newhidups port = auto desc = "Belkin UPS, USB interface" vendorid=050d [mgeusb] driver = newhidups port = auto desc = "MGE UPS, USB

Hi - How can I 'manually' reproduce the results in 'pred1' below? My attempt is pred_manual, but is not correct. Any help is much appreciated. library(splines) set.seed(12345) y <- rgamma(1000, shape =0.5) age <- rnorm(1000, 45, 10) glm1 <- glm(y ~ ns(age, 4), family=Gamma(link=log)) dd <- data.frame(age = 16:80) mm <- model.matrix( ~ ns(dd$age, 4)) pred1 <-

Hi all I'm getting a NaN returned on using dffits, as explained below. To me, there seems no obvious (or non-obvious reason for that matter) reason why a NaN appears. Before I start digging further, can anyone see why dffits might be failing? Is there a problem with the data? Consider: # Load data dep <-