similar to: generalized linear mixed models - how to compare?

Thanks to those who responded to my inquiry about generalized linear mixed models on R and S-plus. Before I summarize the software, I note that there are several ways of doing statistical inference for generalized linear mixed models: (1)Standard maximum likelihood estimation, computationally intensive due to intractable likelihood function (2) Penalized quasi likelihood or similar

Dear All, I wonder if there is a way to fit a generalized linear mixed models (for repeated binomial data) via a direct Maximum Likelihood Approach. The "glmm" in the "repeated" package (Lindsey), the "glmmPQL" in the "MASS" package (Ripley) and "glmmGIBBS" (Myle and Calyton) are not using the full maximum likelihood as I understand. The

I want to analyze binary, multinomial, and count outcomes (as well as the occasional continuous one) for clustered data. The more I search the less I know, and so I'm hoping the list can provide me some guidance about which of the many alternatives to choose. The nlme package seemed the obvious place to start. However, it seems to be using specifications from nls, which does non-linear

Hello, I have compared the potentials of R and Stata about GLMM, analysing the dataset 'ohio' in the package 'faraway' (the same dataset is analysed with GEE in the book 'Extending the linear model with R' by Julian Faraway). Basically, I've tried the 2 commands 'glmmPQL' and 'glmer' of R and the command 'xtmelogit' of Stata. If I'm not

Dear R-users, Half a year ago we put out the R package "glmmADMB" for fitting overdispersed count data. http://otter-rsch.com/admbre/examples/glmmadmb/glmmADMB.html Several people who used this package have requested additional features. We now have a new version ready. The major new feature is that glmmADMB allows Bernoulli responses with logistic and probit links. In addition there

Hello all R-user I am relative new to the R-environment and also to GLMM, so please don't be irritated if some questions don't make sense. I am using R 2.0.0 on Windows 2000. I investigated the occurrence of insects (count) in different parts of different plants (plantid) and recorded as well some characteristics of the plant parts (e.g. thickness). It is an unbalanced design with 21

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

Happy new month, everyone! I am planning to write a NIH grant proposal to study ways to speed Monte Carlo based maximum likelihood algorithm for hierarchical models with a focus on generalized linear mixed models (GLM with random effects). I thought it would be nice and also increase the chance of funding if I could produce an R package in the process. I understand that Prof. Pinheiro ang Bates

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

Hello, I'm using GLMM on the pscl package and i'm not getting the AIC on the summary. The code i'm using is (example) : mmall3 <-glmmPQL(allclues ~ cycloc + male, data=dados, family=poisson, random=~1|animal/idfid) and the results: Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood Data: dados AIC BIC logLik NA NA NA Random effects: Formula: ~1 | animal

Dear list, I am having some problems with extracting Variance Components from a random-effects model: I am running a simple random-effects model using lme: model<-lme(y~1,random=~1|groupA/groupB) which returns the output for the StdDev of the Random effects, and model AIC etc as expected. Until yesterday I was using R v. 2.0, and had no problem in calling the variance components of the

Hi, I have the following type of data: 86 subjects in three independent groups (high power vs low power vs control). Each subject solves 8 reasoning problems of two kinds: conflict problems and noconflict problems. I measure accuracy in solving the reasoning problems. To summarize: binary response, 1 within subject var (TYPE), 1 between subject var (POWER). I wanted to fit the following model:

Dear all, I'm working with count data following over-dispersed poisson distribution and have to work with mixed-models on them (like proc GENMOD on SAS sys.). I'm still not to sure about what function to use. It seems to me that a glmmPQL will do the job I want, but I'll be glad if people who worked on this type of data can share what they learned. Thanks for your time. simon

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

I am analysing some binary data with a mixed effects model using glmmPQL. I am aware that I cannot use the AIC values to help me find the minimum adequate model so how do I perform likelihood ratio tests? I need to fix on the minimum adequate model but I'm not sure of the proper way to do this. Thank you very much, Elizabeth Boakes Elizabeth Boakes PhD Student Institute of Zoology

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

Three related questions on LMEs and GLMMs in R: (1) Is there a way to fix the dispersion parameter (at 1) in either glmmPQL (MASS) or GLMM (lme4)? Note: lme does not let you fix any variances in advance (presumably because it wants to "profile out" an overall sigma^2 parameter) and glmmPQL repeatedly calls lme, so I couldn't see how glmmPQL would be able to fix the dispersion

Greetings all The help file for GAMM in mgcv indicates that the log likelihood for a GAMM reported using summary(my.gamm$lme) (as an example) is not correct. However, in a past R-help post (included below), there is some indication that the likelihood ratio test in anova.lme(mygamm$lme, mygamm1$lme) is valid. How can I tell if anova.lme results are meaningful (are AIC, BIC, and logLik

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

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