similar to: Problem in using confint method on polr model object

Dear friends. Do Polr in Mass change the sign of the coefficients ? Example (McCullagh 1980) options(contrasts=c("contr.treatment","contr.poly")) library(Mass) freq <- c(19,29,24,497,560,269) yy <- ordered(gl(3,1,6)) z4 <- polr(yy~x,weights=freq) > z4 Call: polr(formula = yy ~ x, weights = freq) Coefficients: x2 -0.6026492 Intercepts: 1|2

the function confint uses the profiling method of the function of the package MASS confint.glm even after the package has been detached! 1: might this be the intenden behavior? 2. How does the function remember its 'MASS' functionality after detaching the package? R: 1.8.0; Windows 2000 Here is a sample program > set.seed(7882) > x<-rep(c(0,1),c(20,20)) >

Hi: Is there any function in R to fit ordinal regression models (linear and non-linear) described by Peter McCullagh. Regression Models for Ordinal Data, JRSS-B, 1980, 42:109-142 Thanks, Venkat ----------------------------------------------------------------------- E. S. Venkatraman, Ph.D. Phone: (212) 639-8520 Fax: (212) 717-3137 Assistant Attending Member Memorial

Dear all, I've replicated the cheese tasting example on p175 of GLM's by McCullagh and Nelder. This is a 4 treatment (rows) by 9 ordinal response (cols) table. Here's my simple code: #### cheese library(MASS) options(contrasts = c("contr.treatment", "contr.poly")) y = c(0,0, 1, 7, 8,8,19, 8,1, 6,9,12,11, 7,6, 1, 0,0, 1,1, 6, 8,23,7,

Using a factor with 'number' levels the straightforward symbolic formulation of a contrast in 'glht' of the 'multcomp' package fails. How can this problem be resolved without having to redefine the factor levels? Example: #A is a factor with 'number' levels #B similar factor with 'letter' levels dat<-data.frame(y=1:4,A=factor(c(1,1,2,2)),

Dear Peter. I guess you know that Jim Lindseys code include nordr and ordglm in library gnlm - I attach the htmls which do various linear and nonlinear ordinal regressions - exemplified with just the data mentioned, McCullagh (1980) JRSS B42, 109-142. I had it work very fine. -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Peter Malewski <p.malewski at tu-bs.de> Til: Troels Ring <tring at

Dear all, It appears that MASS::polr() and Design::lrm() return the same point estimates but different st.errs when fitting proportional odds models, grade<-c(4,4,2,4,3,2,3,1,3,3,2,2,3,3,2,4,2,4,5,2,1,4,1,2,5,3,4,2,2,1) score<-c(525,533,545,582,581,576,572,609,559,543,576,525,574,582,574,471,595, 557,557,584,599,517,649,584,463,591,488,563,553,549) library(MASS) library(Design)

I'm running polr() and getting warning messages from glm.fit(). It seems reasonable to use glm.control() to turn on the trace and follow what glm.fit() does when called by polr(); or is it? glm.control(maxit=10, trace=TRUE) polr(act~., data=mm) The glm.control() sets the trace TRUE, but there's no change in the output from polr(). Many thanks in advance for any help/pointers.

Dear community, I am currently trying to fit an ordinal logistic regression model with the polr function. I often get the same error message : "attempt to find suitable starting values failed", for example with : require(MASS) data(iris) polr(Species~Sepal.Length+Sepal.Width+Petal.Length+Petal.Width,iris) (I know the response variable Species should be nominal but I do as levels

Dear all, the application of the function rstandard() in the base package to a glm object does not produce residuals standardized to have variance one: the reason is that the deviance residuals are divided by the dispersion estimate and not by the square root of the estimate for the dispersion. Should the function not be changed to produce residuals with a variance about 1? R 1.8.1 on

Hi, I'm getting an error message using polr(): Error in optim(start, fmin, gmin, method = "BFGS", hessian = Hess, ...) : initial value in 'vmmin' is not finite The outcome variable is ordinal and factored, and the independant variable is continuous. I've checked the source code for both polr() and optim() and can't find any variable called

Dear all, I have used polr in MASS but I am uncertain about the summary(polr.object) interpretation and would be happy for help on that. This is my summary: > summary(shade.polr) Re-fitting to get Hessian Call: polr(formula = as.ordered(shade) ~ as.factor(objekt), data = sof, weights = as.numeric(frek)) Coefficients: Value Std. Error t value 2.1699520 0.3681840 5.8936612

I am new to R, ordered logistic regression, and polr. The "Examples" section at the bottom of the help page for polr<http://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-patched/library/MASS/html/polr.html>(that fits a logistic or probit regression model to an ordered factor response) shows options(contrasts = c("contr.treatment", "contr.poly")) house.plr <- polr(Sat ~ Infl +

Hi (1)In polr(), is there any way to calculate a pseudo analogue to the R^2. Just for use as a purely descriptive statistic of the goodness of fit? (2) And: what are the assumptions which must be fulfilled, so that the results of polr() (t-values, etc.) are valid? How can I test these prerequisites most easily: I have a three-level (ordered factor) response and four metric variables. many

Dear Sir, I get an error message when I use polr() in MASS package. My data is "ord.dat". I made "y" a factor. y y1 y2 x lx 1 0 0 0 3.2e-02 -1.49485 2 0 0 0 3.2e-02 -1.49485 3 0 0 0 1.0e-01 -1.00000 4 0 0 0 1.0e-01 -1.00000 5 0 0 0 3.2e-01 -0.49485 6 0 0 0 3.2e-01 -0.49485 7 1 1 0 1.0e+00 0.00000 8 0 0 0 1.0e+00 0.00000 9 1 1 0

Hi all, I have a problem to estimate Std. Error and t-value by ?polr? in library Mass. They result from the summary of a polr object. I can obtain them working in the R environment with the following statements: temp <- polr(formula = formula1, data = data1) coeff <- summary(temp), but when the above statements are enclosed in a function, summary reports the following error:

Hi - I am using polr. I can get a result from polr fit by calling result.plr <- polr(formula, data=mydata, method="probit"); However, from the 'result.plr', how can I access standard error of the estimated coefficients as well as the t statistics for each one of them? What I would like to do ultimately is to see which coefficients are not significant and try to refit the

Hello I am running R 1.8.1 on a Windows platform I am attempting to fit an ordinal logistic regression model, using the polr function, as described in Venables and Ripley. But when I try model4 <- polr(ypsxcat~committed + as.factor(sex) + as.factor(drugusey) + anycsw + as.factor(sex)*committed + as.factor(sex)*as.factor(drugusey)+as.factor(sex)*anycsw, data = duhray) I get a message

In polr.R the (several) functions gmin and fmin contain the code > theta <- beta[pc + 1L:q] > gamm <- c(-100, cumsum(c(theta[1L], exp(theta[-1L]))), 100) That's bad. There's no reason to suppose beta[pc+1L] is larger than -100 or that the cumulative sum is smaller than 100. For practical datasets those assumptions are frequently violated, causing the

Dear R experts: I am running some calculations using polr() in MASS library, and found some differences in results obtained on two different machines (IRIX 6.5, and Linux RH 7.1). It is not clear to me whether this is due to some error in my programming the calculation and how to resolve the differences, if possible. The polr() call is the following: