similar to: anova for random-intercept lmer

Dear R-Helpers, I want to compare the results of outputs from glmmPQL and lmer analyses. I could do this if I could extract the coefficients and standard errors from the summaries of the lmer models. This is easy to do for the glmmPQL summaries, using > glmm.fit <- try(glmmPQL(score ~ x*type, random = ~ 1 | subject, data = df, family = binomial), TRUE) > summary(glmmPQL.fit)$tTable

Dear R HELP, ABOUT glmmPQL and the anova command. Here is an example of a repeated-measures ANOVA focussing on the way starling masses vary according to (i) roost situation and (ii) time (two time points only). library(nlme);library(MASS)

Dear R users, I have been having problems getting believable estimates from anova on a model fit from lmer. I get the impression that F is being greatly underestimated, as can be seen by running the example I have given below. First an explanation of what I'm trying to do. I am trying to fit a glmm with binomial errors to some data. The experiment involves 10 shadehouses, divided between

I have been looking into both of these approaches to conducting a GLMM, and want to make sure I understand model specification in each. In particular - after looking at Bates' Rnews article and searching through the help archives, I am unclear on the specification of nested factors in lmer. Do the following statements specify the same mode within each approach? m1 = glmmPQL(RICH ~ ZONE,

R, I want to get means and confidence limits on the original scale for the treatment effect after running a mixed model. The data are: response<-c(16,4,5,8,41,45,10,15,11,3,1,64,41,23,18,16,10,22,2,3)

Dear R Masters, I'm an anesthesiology resident trying to make his way through basic statistics. Recently I have been confronted with longitudinal data in a treatment vs. control analysis. My dataframe is in the form of: subj | group | baseline | time | outcome (long) or subj | group | baseline | time1 |...| time6 | (wide) The measured variable is a continuous one. The null hypothesis in

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.

Greetings, everyone. I've been trying to analyze bird nest survival data using generalized linear mixed models (because we documented several consecutive nesting attempts by the same individuals; i.e. repeated measures data) and have been unable to persuade the various GLMM models to work with my user-defined link function. Actually, glmmPQL seems to work, but as I want to evaluate a suite of

Dear all, I have tried to calculate a GLMM fit with lmer (lme4) and glmmPQL (MASS), I also used glm for comparison. I am getting very different results from different functions, and I suspect that the problem is with our dataset rather than the functions, but I would appreciate help in deciding whether my suspicions are right. If indeed we are attempting the wrong type of analysis, some

I have been using lme from nlme to do a 3-way anova with all the effects treated as random. I was wondering if someone could direct me to an example of how to do this using lmer from lme4. I have 3 main effects, tim, trt, ctr, and all the interaction effects tim*trt*ctr. The response variable is ge. Here is my lme code: dat <-

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

Hi R-users,   I intend to apply a mixed model on a set of longitudinal data, with a negative binomial distributed dependent variable, and after following the discussions on R help list I saw that more experienced people recommended using lmer (from lme4 pack), glmmPQL (from MASS) or glmm.admb (from glmmADMB pack)     My first problem: yesterday this syntax was ok, now I get this weird message (I

Greetings, I am trying to run a logistic regression model for binary data with a random intercept and slope in R 2.6.1. When I use the code: lmer1<-lmer(infect ~ time+gender + (1+time|id), family=binomial, data=ichs, method="Laplace") Then from: summary(lmer1) I get the message: Error in if (any(sd < 0)) return("'sd' slot has negative entries") : missing

Greetings. Here is sample code, with some comments. It shows how I can simulate data and estimate glm with binomial family when there is no individual level random error, but when I add random error into the linear predictor, I have a difficult time getting reasonable estimates of the model parameters or the variance component. There are no clusters here, just individual level responses, so

Dear R Helpers, I have noticed that when I use lmer to analyse data, the summary function gives different values for the AIC, BIC and log-likelihood compared with the anova function. Here is a sample program #make some data set.seed(1); datx=data.frame(array(runif(720),c(240,3),dimnames=list(NULL,c('x1','x2','y' )))) id=rep(1:120,2); datx=cbind(id,datx) #give x1 a

Hello R users! I've been experimenting with lmer to estimate a mixed model with a dichotomous dependent variable. The goal is to fit a hierarchical model in which we compare the effect of individual and city-level variables. I've run up against a conceptual problem that I expect one of you can clear up for me. The question is about random effects in the context of a model fit with a

>On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Bernd Weiss wrote: > >> I am trying to replicate some multilevel models with binary outcomes >> using R's "lmer" and "glmmPQL" and Stata's gllmm, respectively. > >That's not going to happen as they are not using the same criteria. the glmmPQL and lmer both use the PQL method to do it ,so can we get the same result by

Dear Thierry, thank you for the quick reply. I have only one question about the approach you proposed. As you suggested, imagine that the model we end up after the model selection procedure is: mod2.1 <- lmer(dT_purs ~ T + Z + (1 +T+Z| subject), data =x, REML= FALSE) According to the common procedures specified in many manuals and recent papers, if I want to compute the p_values relative to

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

Seems the message below and the thread have reveived no attention/answer. The output presented is quite tricky. Looks like if lmer (lme4 0.9975-10) has accepted a negative binomial link with reasonable estimates, although it was not designed for... What can one think about result validity ? Best Patrick Message: 34 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "E. Robardet"