resources:lme
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| resources:lme [2014/09/08 21:11] – Page moved from lme to resources:lme admin | resources:lme [2019/05/22 16:08] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| However, I found it easier to do this: | However, I found it easier to do this: | ||
| + | <code rsplus> | ||
| colnames(x) <- c(" | colnames(x) <- c(" | ||
| + | </ | ||
| based on guidance from: | based on guidance from: | ||
| Line 24: | Line 26: | ||
| http:// | http:// | ||
| - | '' | + | >Column names can be given explicitly via the col.names; explicit names override the header line (if present). |
| Line 30: | Line 32: | ||
| http:// | http:// | ||
| - | '' | ||
| - | R functions for processing lm, glm, svy.glm, merMod and polr outputs.'' | + | >'' |
| + | > | ||
| + | >R functions for processing lm, glm, svy.glm, merMod and polr outputs. | ||
| - | **arm** package provides the coefplot() function for plotting the regression coefficient values and std. errors. | ||
| + | **arm** package provides the '' | ||
| - | Need to specify that subjects is a nominal variable, using the //factor// command: | + | |
| + | Need to specify that subjects is a nominal variable, using the '' | ||
| http:// | http:// | ||
| - | '' | + | >Tell R that a variable is nominal by making it a factor. The factor stores the nominal values as a vector of integers in the range [ 1... k ] (where k is the number of unique values in the nominal variable), and an internal vector of character strings (the original values) mapped to these integers. |
| ===== Interpretation of glmer output ===== | ===== Interpretation of glmer output ===== | ||
| - | A nice description: | + | A nice description |
| https:// | https:// | ||
| - | | + | >In this case the coefficient corresponds to one of the |
| - | terms in the model and I would advocate performing a likelihood ratio | + | >terms in the model and I would advocate performing a likelihood ratio |
| - | test comparing the two models | + | >test comparing the two models |
| - | + | > | |
| - | | + | >< |
| - | | + | >fm <- glmer(SameSite~BreedSuc1+Sex+(1|Bird), |
| - | | + | >fm0 <- glmer(SameSite~Sex+(1|Bird), |
| - | | + | >hypothesis model |
| - | | + | >anova(fm0, fm) |
| - | | + | ></ |
| - | | + | >Even though the function is called anova it will, in this case, |
| - | | + | >perform a likelihood ratio test (LRT). |
| - | | + | >AIC and BIC if you prefer to compare models according to one of those |
| - | + | >criteria but I prefer using the likelihood ratio for nested models. | |
| - | However, before doing that comparison you should ask yourself whether | + | >However, before doing that comparison you should ask yourself whether |
| - | | + | >you want to compare models that have the, apparently unnecessary term |
| - | | + | >for Sex in them. The way I would approach the model building is first |
| - | | + | >to reduce the model to |
| - | + | >< | |
| - | | + | >fm1 <- lmer(SameSite~BreedSuc1+(1|Bird), |
| - | + | ></ | |
| - | | + | >You could then compare |
| - | + | >< | |
| - | | + | >anova(fm1, fm) |
| - | + | ></ | |
| - | | + | >which I presume will give a large p-value for the LRT, so we prefer |
| - | | + | >the simpler model, fm1. After that, I would compare |
| - | + | >< | |
| - | | + | >fm2 <- lmer(SameSite ~ 1 + (1|Bird), family=" |
| - | + | ></ | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
resources/lme.1410225104.txt.gz · Last modified: (external edit)
