similar to: Overdispersion in the lmer models

Dear All, I am working with linear mixed-effects models using the lme4 package in R. I created a model with the lmer function including some main effects, a two-way interaction and a random effect. Now I am searching how I could incorporate an interaction between the random effect and one of the fixed effects. I tried to express the interaction in:

Dear All, I am working with linear mixed-effects models using the lme4 package in R. I created a model with the lmer function including some main effects, a two-way interaction and a random effect. Now I am searching for a way to save the predicted values for this model. As far as I can see, there is no command in lme4 to save the predicted values (like the predict(model) function in e.g.

Hi, I am performing glm with binomial family and my data show slight overdispersion (HF<1.5). Nevertheless, in order to take into account for this heterogeneity though weak, I use F-test rather than Chi-square (Krackow & Tkadlec, 2001). But surprisingly, outputs of this two tests are exactly similar. What is the reason and how can I scale the output by overdispersion ?? Thank you,

How can I eliminate the overdispersion for binary data apart the use of the quasibinomial? help me Eva Iannario ------------------------------------------------------ Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom http://click.libero.it/infostrada11gen07

I am attempting to run a glm with a binomial model to analyze proportion data. I have been following Crawley's book closely and am wondering if there is an accepted standard for how much is too much overdispersion? (e.g. change in AIC has an accepted standard of 2). In the example, he fits several models, binomial and quasibinomial and then accepts the quasibinomial. The output for residual

Dear All I recently proposed a simple modification to Wedderburn's 1974 estimate of overdispersion for count and binomial data, which is used in glm for the quasipoisson and quasibinomial families (see the reference below). Although my motivation for the modification arose from considering sparse data, it will be almost identical to Wedderburn's estimate when the data are not sparse.

Dear All I am trying to do a repeated measures analysis using lmer and have a number of issues. I have non-orthogonal, unbalanced data. Count data was obtained over 10 months for three treatments, which were arranged into 6 blocks. Treatment is not nested in Block but crossed, as I originally designed an orthogonal, balanced experiment but subsequently lost a treatment from 2 blocks. My

I have a few questions relating to overdispersion in a sex ratio data set that I am working with (note that I already have an analysis with GLMMs for fixed effects, this is just to estimate dispersion). The response variable is binomial because nestlings can only be male or female. I have samples of 1-5 nestlings from each nest (individuals within a nest are not independent, so the response

Dear R-users, I am currently trying to switch from SAS to R, and am not very familiar with R yet, so forgive me if this question is irrelevant. If I try to find the significance of the fixed factor "spikes" in a generalized linear mixed model, with "site" nested within "zone" as a random factor, I compare following two models with the anova function:

Hi, I would like to obtain the dispersion parameter for a quasipoisson model for later use in calculating QAIC values for model comparison.Can anyone suggest a method of how to go about doing this? The idea I have now is that I could use the residual deviance divided by the residual degrees of freedom to obtain the dispersion parameter. The residual deviance is available in the summary

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

I've been poking around with GLMs (on which I am *not* an expert) on behalf of a student, particularly binomial (standard logit link) nested models with overdispersion. I have one possible bug to report (but I'm not confident enough to be *sure* it's a bug); one comment on the general inconsistency that seems to afflict the various functions for dealing with overdispersion in GLMs

Hi all, I was wondering if somebody could give me advice regarding the dispersion parameter in GLMM's. I'm a beginner in R and basically in GLMM's. I've ran a GLMM with a poisson family and got really nice results that conform with theory, as well with results that I've obtained previously with other analysis and that others have obtained in similar studies. But the

Dear R-Users, I can't understand the behaviour of quasibinomial in lmer. It doesn't appear to be calculating a scaling parameter, and looks to be reducing the standard errors of fixed effects estimates when overdispersion is present (and when it is not present also)! A simple demo of what I'm seeing is given below. Comments appreciated? Thanks, Russell Millar Dept of Stat U.

Dear R users, I am trying to fully understand the difference between estimating overdispersion with glm.nb() from MASS compared to glm(..., family = quasipoisson). It seems that (i) the coefficient estimates are different and also (ii) the summary() method for glm.nb suggests that overdispersion is taken to be one: "Dispersion parameter for Negative Binomial(0.9695) family taken to be

Dear all, I am new to R and my question may be trivial to you... I am doing a GLM with binomial errors to compare proportions of species in different categories of seed sizes (4 categories) between 2 sites. In the model summary the residual deviance is much higher than the degree of freedom (Residual deviance: 153.74 on 4 degrees of freedom) and even after correcting for overdispersion by

Hi all, This is partly a statistical question as well as a question about R, but I am stumped! I have count data from various sites across years. (Not all of the sites in the study appear in all years). Each site has its own habitat score "habitat" that remains constant across all years. I want to know if counts declined faster on sites with high "habitat" scores. I can

THANKS so very much for your help (previous and future!). I have a two follow-up questions. 1) You say that dispersion = 1 by definition ....dispersion changes from 1 to 13.5 when I go from binomial to quasibinomial....does this suggest that I should use the binomial? i.e., is the dispersion factor more important that the 2) Is there a cutoff for too much overdispersion - mine seems to be

Dear R-helpers: I have a question related to fitting overdispersed count data using lmer. Basically, I simulate an overdispsed data set by adding an observation-level normal random shock into exp(....+rnorm()). Then I fit a lmer quasipoisson model. The estimation results are very off (see model output of fit.lmer.over.quasi below). Can someone kindly explain to me what went wrong? Many thanks in

Hey Buddy, Hope you have been doing well since last contact. If you have the answer to the following question, please let me know. If you have chance to travel up north. let me know. best, -Sean ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sean Zhang <seanecon@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM Subject: question related to fitting overdispersion count data using lmer