Skip to content
Prev 15545 / 20628 Next

Question glmmADMB

I did look at Wouter's data some because they sent it to me the last
time around.

The key observation is that this is the marginal distribution of the
outcome variable:

     0    1    2   3
596 105  18   1

  Mollie is right that these data are almost certainly *not*
zero-inflated. Indeed, when analyzing a similar kind of data in the
past (Pasch et al. 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/673263 )
we found that we needed to reduce the data to binary (0 vs. >0),
although that was to overcome a specific technical problem (some
treatments with all zeros). Furthermore, trying to assess variation in
the level of zero-inflation across groups is almost certainly too
optimistic.  This worked fine for me:

form <- Num_Mistakes ~ (Context*Outcome*Language) + (1|Subject)
SLIP1_model <- glmmTMB(form, zi = ~1,
                   data = SLIP_1_error_data, family = "poisson")

but gave a zero-inflation parameter of -18, corresponding to a zero
inflation probability of about 10^{-8} -- indicating further that
zero-inflation is not necessary here.  (The huge standard error on the
zero-inflation is a technical issue caused by the flatness of the
goodness-of-fit surface in this extreme case.)

 cheers
   Ben Bolker
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Mollie Brooks <mollieebrooks at gmail.com> wrote: