testing fixed effects in binomial lmer...again?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Duffy wrote:
| On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Dimitris Rizopoulos wrote:
|>> On Jan 8, 2008 5:38 AM, Achaz von Hardenberg <fauna at pngp.it> wrote:
|>> |>>> However, I am not sure about what I should do to test for the |>>> significance of fixed effects in the binomial case |> What about Bootstrap (parametric or not)? Would it be useful in this |> case? |> | | The only problem is specifying a bootstrap mechanism that respects the | structure of the random effects. So for time series data, your bootstrap | samples have to remain AR1 or whatever (ie you don't want gaps appearing that | aren't in the observed data), and for genetic type data (the kind I have), | that pseudosample people are appropriately related to one another. Resampling | clusters works for that kind of data, though I think you need many clusters. | There are several papers in the area of genetic linkage analysis that have | validated bootstrapping for a test that a variance component is zero. | | But for testing simple hypotheses about particular fixed effects, | a permutation/randomization test should work, I think. | | David Duffy. ~ My favorite solution (which worked in nlme, I think, but might take some time to get for lme4 ...) would to be able to generate posterior simulations from the reduced model, then use these to generate a null distribution for F statistics (or whatever) for the model comparison. This seems as though it would actually be a relatively straightforward extension of mcmcsamp, once it exists -- although arguably once you have mcmcsamp you wouldn't need it any more ... ~ Ben Bolker -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHg/drc5UpGjwzenMRAgtdAJ9iill9KFLLGOAUnLyXvCRVEWthEQCdFLb9 s+A2eFe1JfDrAy/0zW9MFhA= =Aitb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----