similar to: options("contrasts")

Hi, I found that using different contrasts (e.g. contr.helmert vs. contr.treatment) will generate different fitted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression using multinom(); while the fitted probabilities from binary logistic regression seem to be the same. Why is that? and for multinomial logisitc regression, what contrast should be used? I guess it's helmert? here is an example

R version 2.10.1 (2009-12-14) Copyright (C) 2009 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing ISBN 3-900051-07-0 R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. You are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type 'license()' or 'licence()' for distribution details. Natural language support but running in an English locale R is a collaborative project with

In S-Plus, I can obtain polynomial contrasts for an ordered factor with contr.poly(). The function also exists in R, however is limited to factors where the levels are equally spaced. In S-Plus, one can obtain the contrasts for a set of numeric values representing unequally spaced ordered factors. Has anyone implemented this in R? I see that the S-Plus function calls another function (poly.raw())

Hi, Somebody knows how to make contrasts if i'm using the function adonis? Thanks.

Dear all, I'm working with Cox-regression, because data could be censored. But in this particular case not. Now I have a simple example: PRO and PRE are (0,1) coded. The response is not normal distributed. We are interested in a model which could describe interaction. But my results are depending strongly in the choose of the contrast option. It is clear that there is some dependence in

Hi all, I am trying to do a ordered probit regression using polr(), replicating a result from SAS. >polr(y ~ x, dat, method='probit') suppose the model is y ~ x, where y is a factor with 3 levels and x is a factor with 5 levels, To get coefficients, SAS by default use the last level as reference, R by default use the first level (correct me if I was wrong), The result I got is a

Dear all, I do not seem to grasp how contrasts are set for ordered factors. Perhaps someone can elighten me? When I work with ordered factors, I would often like to be able to reduce the used polynomial to a simpler one (where possible). Thus, I would like to explicetly code the polynomial but ideally, the intial model (thus, the full polynomial) would be identical to one with an ordered factor.

Hello [R]-help I am trying to find > a package where you can do ANOVA based trend analysis on grouped data > using orthogonal polynomial contrasts coefficients, for unequally > spaced factor levels. The closest hit I've had is from this web site: >(http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xN4K_KGuYGcJ:www.datavis.ca/sasmac/orpoly.html+Orthogonal+polynomial >l but I

Hola compañeros de la lista, qué tal. Los molesto con la siguiente duda: Tengo un experimento con dos factores A y B, cada uno de los cuales tiene los siguientes niveles (que son concentraciones de dos hormonas vegetales aplicadas a plantas): niveles del factor A: 0, 0.2, 0.5, 1 niveles del factor B: 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1 y mi variable de respuesta es continua, todo dentro del set de datos

Dear R-users, I want to fit a linear model with Y as response variable and X a categorical variable (with 4 categories), with the aim of comparing the basal category of X (category=1) with category 4. Unfortunately, there is another categorical variable with 2 categories which interact with x and I have to include it, so my model is s "reg3: Y=x*x3". Using fit.contrast to make the

useRs, A no doubt simple question, but I am baffled. Indeed, I think I once knew the answer, but can't recover it. The default contrasts for aov (and lm, and...) are contr.treatment and contr.poly for unordered and ordered factors, respectively. But, how does one invoke the latter? That is, in a data.frame, how does one indicate that a factor is an *ordered* factor such that

the study design of the data I have to analyse is simple. There is 1 control group (CTRL) and 2 different treatment groups (TREAT_1 and TREAT_2). The data also includes 2 covariates COV1 and COV2. I have been asked to check if there is a linear or quadratic treatment effect in the data. I created a dummy data set to explain my situation: df1 <- data.frame( Observation =

#I am trying to understand how R fits models for contrasts in a #simple one-way anova. This is an example, I am not stupid enough to want #to simultaneously apply all of these contrasts to real data. With a few #exceptions, the tests that I would compute by hand (or by other software) #will give the same t or F statistics. It is the contrast estimates that R produces #that I can't seem to

Hi Folks, I'm comparing some output from R with output from SPSS. The coefficients of the independent variables (which are all factors, each at 2 levels) are identical. However, R's Intercept (using default contr.treatment) differs from SPSS's 'constant'. It seems that the contrasts were set in SPSS using /CONTRAST (varname)=Simple(1) I can get R's Intercept to match

Hi everybody, I'm trying to construct contrasts for an ANOVA to determine if there is a significant trend in the means of my groups. In the following example, based on the type of 2x3 ANOVA I'm trying to perform, does the linear polynomial contrast generated by contr.poly allow me to test for a linear trend across groups? doi=data.frame( Group=c( rep(1, 5), rep(2, 5), rep(3, 5),

Hello, I've got what I'd expect to be a pretty simple issue: I fit an aov object using multiple error strata, and would like some significance tests for the contrasts I specified. In this contrived example, I model some test score as the interaction of a subject's gender and two emotion variables (angry, happy, neutral), measured at entry to the experiment (entry) and later

Hello R-help I don’t know how to interpret significance from the contr.poly() function . From the example below : how can I tell if data has a significant Linear/quadratic/cubic trend? > contr.poly(4, c(1,2,4,8))               .L         .Q          .C [1,] -0.51287764  0.5296271 -0.45436947 [2,] -0.32637668 -0.1059254  0.79514657 [3,]  0.04662524 -0.7679594 -0.39757328 [4,]  0.79262909 

I have some doubts about the validity of my procedure to estimeate linear contrasts ina a factorial design. For sake of semplicity, let's imagine a one way ANOVA with three levels. I am interested to test the significance of the difference between the first and third level (called here contrast C1) and between the first and the seconda level (called here contrast C2). I used the following

Hi, I am analyzing a repeated-measures Greco-Latin Square with the aov command. I am using aov to calculate the MSs and then picking by hand the appropriate neumerator and denominator terms for the F tests. The data are the following: responseFinger mapping.code Subject.n index middle ring little ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1

Dear R users, When fitting a lme() object (from the nlme library), is it possible to test interactions *before* main effects? As I understand, R conventionally re-orders all terms such that highest-order interactions come last - but I??d like to know if it??s possible (and sensible) to change this ordering of terms. I??ve tried the terms() command (from aov) but I don??t know if something