similar to: logistic -normal model

Dear list members, In re-running with GLMM() from the lme4 package a generalized-linear mixed model that I had previously fit with glmmPQL() from MASS, I'm getting a warning of a convergence failure, even when I set the method argument of GLMM() to "PQL": > bang.mod.1 <- glmmPQL(contraception ~ as.factor(children) + cage + urban, + random=~as.factor(children) + cage +

Hello all R-user I am relative new to the R-environment and also to GLMM, so please don't be irritated if some questions don't make sense. I am using R 2.0.0 on Windows 2000. I investigated the occurrence of insects (count) in different parts of different plants (plantid) and recorded as well some characteristics of the plant parts (e.g. thickness). It is an unbalanced design with 21

Dear all, I want to evaluate several generalized linear mixed models, including the null model, and select the best approximating one. I have tried glmmPQL (MASS library) and GLMM (lme4) to fit the models. Both result in similar parameter estimates but fairly different likelihood estimates. My questions: 1- Is it correct to calculate AIC for comparing my models, given that they use

Dear all, I am experiencing problems with glmmmPQL. I am trying to analyze binomial data with some spatial autocorrelation. Here is my code and some of the outputs > colnames(d.glmm) [1] "BV" "Longitude" "Latitude" "nb_pc_02" "nb_expr_02" [6] "pc_02" "nb_pc_07" "nb_expr_07"

I have would like to use logistic regression to analyze the percentage of correct responses in a 2 alternative forced choice task. The question is whether one needs to take into account the fact expected probabilities for the percentage of correct responses ranges between 0.5 and 1 in this case and how to adjust the link function accordingly in R (see details below). Gabriel Subjects were asked

Hello, I have a problem concerning estimation of GLMM. I used methods from 3 different packages (see program). I would expect similar results for glmm and glmmML. The result differ in the estimated standard errors, however. I compared the results to MASS, 4th ed., p. 297. The results from glmmML resemble the given result for 'Numerical integration', but glmm output differs. For the

Dear All, I am analysing a dataset on levels of herbivory in seedlings in an experimental setup in a rainforest. I have seven classes/categories of seedling damage/herbivory that I want to analyse, modelling each separately. There are twenty maternal trees, with eight groups of seedlings around each. Each tree has a TreeID, which I use as the random effect (blocking factor). There are two

I've got a colleague who's using a GLMM to analyse her data, and I've told her that she needs to include an offset. However, glmmPQL doesn't seem to allow one to be included. Is there anyway of doing this? Bob -- Bob O'Hara Rolf Nevanlinna Institute P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile: +358 50 599

Dear R users, I am estimating Poisson mixed models using glmmPQL (MASS) and lmer (lme4). We know that glmmPQL do not provide the correct loglikelihood for such models (it gives the loglike of a 'pseudo' or working linear mixed model). I would like to know how the loglike is calculated by lmer. A minor question is: why do glmmPQL and lmer give different degrees-of-freedom for the same

I'm dealing with count data that's nested and has spatial dependence. I ran a glmm in lmer with a random factor for nestedness. Spatial dependence seems to have been accommodated by model. However I can't add a variance strcuture to this model (to accommodate heterogeneity). Is there a model that can have a poisson distribution *AND* a variance structure *AND* have AIC in output (for

Thanks to those who responded to my inquiry about generalized linear mixed models on R and S-plus. Before I summarize the software, I note that there are several ways of doing statistical inference for generalized linear mixed models: (1)Standard maximum likelihood estimation, computationally intensive due to intractable likelihood function (2) Penalized quasi likelihood or similar

I am trying to run a GLMM on some binomial data. My fixed factors include 2 dichotomous variables, day, and distance. When I run the model: modelA<-glmmPQL(Leaving~Trial*Day*Dist,random=~1|Indiv,family="binomial") I get the error: iteration 1 Error in MEEM(object, conLin, control$niterEM) : Singularity in backsolve at level 0, block 1 >From looking at previous help

I am trying to use the LME package to run a multilevel logistic model using the following code: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- Model1 = GLMM(WEAP ~ TSRAT2 , random = ~1 | GROUP , family = binomial, na.action = na.omit ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi again. Perhaps a simple question this time.... I am analysing data with a dependent variable of insect counts, a fixed effect of site and two random effects, day, which is the same set of 10 days for each site, and then transect, which is nested within site (5 each). I am trying to fit the cross classified model using GLMM in lme4. I have, for potential use, created a second coding

Despite lots of investigation, I haven't found any R packages might be suitable for the following problem. I'd be very grateful for suggestions. I have three-way nested data, with a series of measures (obs) taken in quick succession (equal time spacing) from each subject on different days. The measures taken on the same day are temporally correlated, so I'd like to use an AR1

Hello, I'm using GLMM on the pscl package and i'm not getting the AIC on the summary. The code i'm using is (example) : mmall3 <-glmmPQL(allclues ~ cycloc + male, data=dados, family=poisson, random=~1|animal/idfid) and the results: Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood Data: dados AIC BIC logLik NA NA NA Random effects: Formula: ~1 | animal

Three related questions on LMEs and GLMMs in R: (1) Is there a way to fix the dispersion parameter (at 1) in either glmmPQL (MASS) or GLMM (lme4)? Note: lme does not let you fix any variances in advance (presumably because it wants to "profile out" an overall sigma^2 parameter) and glmmPQL repeatedly calls lme, so I couldn't see how glmmPQL would be able to fix the dispersion

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 friends, I have asked last few days about cross-random effects using PQL, but I have not receive any answer because might my question was not clear. My question was about analysing the salamander mating data using PQL. This data contain cross-random effects for (male) and for (female). By opining MASS and lme library. I wrote this code sala.glmm <- glmmPQL(fixed=y~WSf*WSM,

Hello all, I would like to fit a mixed effects model, but my response is of the negative binomial (or overdispersed poisson) family. The only (?) package that looks like it can do this is glmm.ADMB (but it cannot run on Mac OS X - please correct me if I am wrong!) [1] I think that glmmML {glmmML}, lmer {Matrix}, and glmmPQL {MASS} do not provide this "family" (i.e. nbinom, or