similar to: explained deviance in multinom

Hi R users, I need some help in the followings: I'm doing factor analysis and I need to extract the loading values and the Proportion Var and Cumulative Var values one by one. Here is what I am doing: > fact <- factanal(na.omit(gnome_freq_r2),factors=5); > fact$loadings Loadings: Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5 b1freqr2 0.246 0.486 0.145

Dear *, I would like to obtain for each factor of my anova model the "response variable vs factor" plot with means and 95% Tukey HSD intervals. I would appreciate any information on how to do that. Cheers -------------------------------------------------------------------- Max MANFRIN Tel.: +32 (0)2 650 3168 IRIDIA - CoDE, CP 194/6

It has always been my understanding that deviance for GLMs is defined by; D = -2(loglikelihood(model) - loglikelihood(saturated model)) and this can be calculated by (or at least usually is); D = -2(loglikelihood(model)) As is done so in the code for 'polr' by Brian Ripley (in the package 'MASS') where the -loglikehood is minimised using optim; res <-

Running a binary logit model on the data df <- data.frame(y=sample(letters[1:3], 100, repl=T), x=rnorm(100)) reveals some residual deviance: summary(glm(y ~ ., data=df, family=binomial("logit"))) However, running a multinomial model on that data (multinom, nnet) reveals a residual deviance: summary(multinom(y ~ ., data=df)) On page 203, the MASS book says that "here the

I can think of many brute-force ways to do this outside of R, but was wondering if there was a simple/elegant solution within R instead. I have a table that looks something like the following: Factor1 Factor2 Value A 11/11/2009 5 A 11/12/2009 4 B 11/11/2009 7 B 11/13/2009 8 >From that I need to generate all permutations of Factor1 and Factor2 and force a 0 for any combination that doesn?t

Dear R users, I read your methods of extracting the variance explained by each predictor in different places. My question is: using the method you suggested, the sum of the deviance explained by all terms is not equal to the deviance explained by the full model. Could you tell me what caused such problem? > set.seed(0) > n<-400 > x1 <- runif(n, 0, 1) > ## to see problem

Is names(model1$coef) what you're looking for? -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Cabrera [mailto:krcabrer at epm.net.co] Sent: 29 November 2002 10:36 Cc: R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch Subject: [R] Obtaining the variable names of a glm object Hi, R users! Suppose I make a model like this:

Hello, as far as I see, R reports type I sums of squares. I'd like to get R to print out type III sums of squares. e.g. I have the following model: vardep~factor1*factor2 to get the type III sum of squares for factor1 I've tried anova(lm(vardep~factor2+factor1:factor2),lm(vardep~factor1*factor2)) but that didn't yield the desired result. Could anyone give me a hint how to proceed?

Full_Name: Tanya Logvinenko Version: 1.7.0 OS: Windows 2000 Submission from: (NULL) (132.183.156.125) For unbalanced design, I ran into problem with ANOVA (aov function). The sum of squares for only for the second factor and total are computed correctly, but sum of squares for the first factor is computed incorreclty. Changing order of factors in the formula changes the ANOVA table. For the

I'd like to get a long data set of minimum values from groups in another data set. The following almost does what I want. (Note, I'm using the word factor differently from it's meaning in R; bad choice of words) myframe = data.frame(factor1 = rep(1:2,each=8), factor2 = rep(c("a","b"),each=4, times=2), factor3 = rep(c("x","y"),each=2, times=4),

Dear R people, I have a couple of questions about post-doc analyses for 2 by 2 within subjects ANOVA. I conducted a psycholinguistic study that combined a 2 by 2 design and a latin square design. Specifically, I had 32 items each of which generated 4 conditions. Participants saw each of the 32 items only once: 8 in Condition A, 8 in B, 8 in C, and 8 in D. The table below serves as an example.

Hi All, I have a 4-dimensional data. I'm using barchart() function from lattice package. The R code and data are below - code includes one for stack=TRUE and other for stack=FALSE. I would like to present the data in another form which would be plotting Factor3 levels (P, Q, R, S) as two stacked bars (side by side). Like, for each level of Factor1 there should be two bars: first bar showing

Hi, I am searching for methods to compare regression models with an ordered categorical response variable (polr versus multinom). The pattern of predictions of both methods (using the same predictor variables) is quite different and the AIC is smaller for the multinom approach. I guess polr has more strict premises for the structure of the response variable, which methods can be used to test for

Best R Help, I like to estimate a Multinomial Logit Model with 10 Classes. The problem is that the number of observations differs a lot over the 10 classes: Class | num. Observations A | 373 B | 631 C | 171 D | 700 E | 87 F | 249 G | 138 H | 133 I | 162 J | 407 Total: 3051 Where my data looks like: x1 x2 x3 x4 Class 1 1,02 2 1 A 2 7,2 1 5 B 3 4,2 1 4 H 1 4,1 1 8 F 2 2,4 3 7 D 1 1,2 0 4 J 2 0,9

I want to get the logLik to calculate McFadden.R2 ,ML.R2 and Cragg.Uhler.R2, but the value from multinom does not have logLik.So my quetion is : is logLik meaningful to multinomial logistic model from multinom?If it does, how can I get it? Thank you! ps: I konw VGAM has function to get the multinomial logistic model with logLik, but I prefer use the function from "official" R

Is anyone aware of a way to check whether multinom has converged by checking a component of the output ? I'm not familar with nnet but, since multinom calls nnet , maybe there is an extra argument once can send to multinom to capture this information. Thanks.

Dear R users, I'm using a multinomial LOGIT model to analyse choice behaviour of consumers (as part of my masters thesis research). Using the R documentation and search on the R website I have a working script now. Parameters are estimated and I can access them via coefficients(multinom.out). In order to see if the parameters are significant I like to access the standard errors in the

Dear all, I'm fitting a multinom function to my dataset (multinom(outcome~age+K+D)) and I need to present my results on a poster. Does someone know a nice way of doing that? I think I saw in an archive that you cannot plot a multinom.object, is it true? Thank you by advance for your help, Cheers Camille

Hi, I am trying to specify a multinomial logit model using the multinom function from the nnet package. Now I add another independent variable and it halves the AIC as given by summary(multinom()). But when I call Anova(multinom()) from the car package, it tells me that this added variable is insignificant (Pr(>Chisq)=0.39). Thus, the improved AIC suggests to keep the variable but the Anova

Hi all, I'm working on a multinomial (or "polytomous") logistic regression using R and have made great progress using multinom() from the nnet library. My response variable has three categories, and there are two different possible predictors. I'd like to use the likelihoods of certain models (ie, saturated, fitteds, and null) to calculate Nagelkerke R-squared values for