Is the fixed effect estimated at the innermost level? If not,
plots of residuals at that level are surely of limited interest.
qqplots, to be relevant, surely need to assess normality of
effects (rather than residuals) at the level that matters for
the intended inferences.
If the fixed effect is estimated at the level of the random
effect, then of course there are just 12 effects that should
appear in any qq or suchlike plot.
John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au
phone : +61 2 (6125)3473 fax : +61 2(6125)5549
Centre for Bioinformation Science, Room 1194,
John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27)
Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
On 19 Apr 2005, at 8:03 PM, r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch wrote:
From: Andrew Robinson <andrewr at uidaho.edu>
Date: 19 April 2005 12:41:24 PM
To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: [R] Odd diagnostic plots in mixed-effects models
Dear R community,
In the excellent nlme package the default diagnostic plot graphs
innermost residuals against innermost fitted values. I recently
mixed-effects model in which there was a very clear positive
trend in this plot.
I inferred that this trend occurred because my fixed effect was
two-level factor, and my random effect was a 12-level factor.
negative residuals were associated with negative random effects
(because of shrinkage, I assume), and the positive with
fixed effects explained little varaition. Therefore plotting the
innermost residuals against the innermost fitted values had the
negative residuals to the left and the positive residuals to the
right, occasioning a trend.
My questions are: is it (as I suspect) harmless, or does it
that the model is lacking? And, is this effect likely to
the interpretation of any of the other standard diagnostic plots
qqnorm)?
Thanks much for any thoughts,
Andrew
--
Andrew Robinson Ph: 208 885 7115
Department of Forest Resources Fa: 208 885 6226
University of Idaho E : andrewr at uidaho.edu
PO Box 441133 W :