Skip to content
Prev 16119 / 20628 Next

Specifying the correct LMM for 'unsual' data

Hi Maarten,

I would not collapse the task and the kind of response (hit/miss) into
one condition predictor. They are conceptually independent as task is
a manipulated factor and response a measured value (covariate in this
model). Also, one of them can vary within pictures the other not (see
model specification below).

So my suggestion would be to have those two predictors:

task: 2-level factor: PM, VS
response: 2-level predictor: hit, miss

Beware of how you specify the contrasts for (all of) the categorical
predictors. The default treatment contrast is most likely not the most
straight-forward way to interpret the model estimates.

Regarding your questions:

1. Am I correct with the maximal linear mixed model specifications?

With the changed predictors I think that this would be the maximal
model. Response can vary also within pictures as each can be a hit or
miss.

lmer(dwell_time ~ age_group * task * response + (1 + task * response |
participant) + (1 + response | picture), data)


2. I think that the data points in the PM-miss-condition (or
PM-hit-condition) are not missing at random because they are missing if
(and only if) there are 6 data point for the same participant in the
PM-hit-condition (and vice versa). Do you think one has to worry about this
and are there any suggestions how to deal with it?

Imbalanced data sets and even missing design cells are not a problem
for mixed models as they take the number of the observation into
account (shrinkage).

Best,
Tom

---

Tom Fritzsche
University of Potsdam
Department of Linguistics
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25
14476 Potsdam
Germany

office: 14.140
phone: +49 331 977 2296
fax: +49 331 977 2095
e-mail: tom.fritzsche at uni-potsdam.de
web:    www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~fritzsche



On 25 January 2018 at 15:35, Maarten Jung
<Maarten.Jung at mailbox.tu-dresden.de> wrote: