similar to: Plotting Factorial GLMs

Quick question about the usage of glht. I'm working with a data set from an experiment where the response is bounded at 0 whose variance increases with the mean, and is continuous. A Gamma error distribution with a log link seemed like the logical choice, and so I've modeled it as such. However, when I use glht to look for differences between groups, I get significant

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

Dear R users, I'm pretty new on using lmer package. My response is binary and I have fixed treatment effect (2 treatments) and random center effect (7 centers). I want to test the effect of treatment by fitting 2 models: Model 1: center effect (random) only Model 2: trt (fixed) + center (random) + trt*center interaction. Then, I want to compare these 2 models with Likelihood Ratio Test.

Dear R users I encounter a problem when i perform a generalized linear mixed model (binary data) with the lmer function (package lme4) with R 2.1.0 on windows XP and the latest version of package "lme4" (0.96-1) and "matrix" (0.96-2) both options "PQL" and "Laplace" for the method argument in lmer function gave me the same results (random and fixed effects

Hello, R users, I have two factors (treat, section) anova design experiment where there are 3 replicates. The objective of the experiment is to test if there is significant difference of yield between top (section 9 to 11) and bottom (section 9 to 11) of the fruit tree under treatment. I found that there are interaction between two factors. I wonder if I can contrast means from levels of

Hi all-- We are planning an intervention study for adolescent alcohol use, and I am planning to use simulations based on a hurdle model (using the hurdle() function in package pscl) for sample size estimation. The simulation code and power code are below -- note that at the moment the "power" code is just returning the coefficients, as something isn't working quite right. The

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

I've tried several methods in OS X, and here's what works best for me. Save the R graphic as a PDF file. Open it with Apple's "Preview" application, and save it as a PNG file. The resulting .png file can be inserted into MS Word or PowerPoint, can be resized, and looks good on either OS X or Windows. There are other programs available for translating the pdf file to png

Hello! I have read somewhere (somehow, I can't seem to find it again, it's been a couple of months) that when analyzing factorial block design, the position where you put the block factor is important, even more when there are missing values. I understand that when using anova.lm, the order is sequential, so that if I want to check for a treatment effect, I should put my blocking factor

> On Mar 5, 2018, at 2:27 PM, Bert Gunter <bgunter.4567 at gmail.com> wrote: > > David: > > I believe your response on SO is incorrect. This is a standard OFAT (one factor at a time) design, so that assuming additivity (no interactions), the effects of drugA and drugB can be determined via the model you rejected: >> three groups, no drugA/no drugB, yes drugA/no drugB,

> On Mar 5, 2018, at 3:04 PM, Bert Gunter <bgunter.4567 at gmail.com> wrote: > > But of course the whole point of additivity is to decompose the combined effect as the sum of individual effects. Agreed. Furthermore your encoding of the treatment assignments has the advantage that the default treatment contrast for A+B will have a statistical estimate associated with it. That was a

But of course the whole point of additivity is to decompose the combined effect as the sum of individual effects. "Mislead" is a subjective judgment, so no comment. The explanation I provided is standard. I used it for decades when I taught in industry. Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along and sticking things into

Greetings to all, First off, I want to thank you all for answering any nagging questions I've had over the past few days. I've been in the process of putting together A Quick and (Very) Dirty Intro to Doing Your Statistics in R (which I have posted to http://didemnid.ucdavis.edu/rtutorial.html ) in order to teach an R workshop for the graduate students in my department. This is a

I'm attempting to analyze some survey data comparing multiple docks. I surveyed all of the slips within each dock, but as slips are nested within docks, getting multiple samples per slip, and don't really represent any meaningful gradient, slip is a random effect. There are also an unequal number of slips at each dock. I'm having syntactical issues, however. When I try

Buenos días, Gracias Carlos, siguiendo el ejemplo que comentas, esto es lo que he introducido en el Scrip de RStudio: *library(xlsx)* *library(xlsxjars)* *library(rJava)* *library(aod)* *R<-read.csv("2002.CSV", sep=";", dec=",", header=T)* *attach(R)* *group<-gl(2,670,1340,labels= c("AVE", "Log.Imports.Value.in.1000.USD"))*

Dear R folk, First off I want to thank those of you who responded with comments for my R quick and dirty stats tutorial. They've been quite helpful, and I'm in the process of revising them. When it comes to repeated measures MANOVA, I'm in a bit of a bind, however. I'm beginning to see that all of the documentation is written for psychologists, who have a slightly

# Hello R Users, # # I would like to fit a glm model with quasi family and # logistical link function, but this does not seam to work # with binary data. # # Please don't suggest to use the quasibinomial family. This # works out, but when applied to the true data, the # variance function does not seams to be # appropriate. # # I couldn't see in the # theory why this does not work. # Is

Hello, R experts, If I understand Ted's anwser correctly, then I can not contrast the mean yields between sections 1-8 and 9-11 under "Trt" but I can contrast mean yields for sections 1-3 and 6-11 because there exists significant interaction between two factors (Trt:section4, Trt:section5). Could I use the commands below to test the difference between sections 1-3 and 6-11 ?

Dear R-help-list, I have a problem in which the explanatory variables are categorical, the response variable is a proportion, and experiment contains technical replicates (pseudoreplicates) as well as biological replicated. I am new to both generalized linear models and mixed- effects models and would greatly appreciate the advice of experienced analysts in this matter. I analyzed the

You need to give the model formula that gave your output. There are two sources of variation (at least), within and between locations; though it looks as though your analysis may have tried to account for this (but if so, the terms are not laid out in a way that makes for ready interpretation. The design is such (two locations) that you do not have much of a check that effects are consistent over