Message-ID: <CAJuCY5w4zo1QveJcN4V4841TN7S5rVZwZjDdFzgfxaTg=+816A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: 2016-05-23T15:42:24Z
From: Thierry Onkelinx
Subject: Question about random effects
In-Reply-To: <CA+P1f9V+H4TnVkSG6D4_SWSJEOb+kUOp4NrNwfR3o16xUDONvw@mail.gmail.com>
If the random effect reflects the design of the study then it should remain
in the model.
ir. Thierry Onkelinx
Instituut voor natuur- en bosonderzoek / Research Institute for Nature and
Forest
team Biometrie & Kwaliteitszorg / team Biometrics & Quality Assurance
Kliniekstraat 25
1070 Anderlecht
Belgium
To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no more
than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be able to say
what the experiment died of. ~ Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher
The plural of anecdote is not data. ~ Roger Brinner
The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does not
ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a given body of data.
~ John Tukey
2016-05-23 17:13 GMT+02:00 Adriana Maldonado Chaparro <
maldonado.aa at gmail.com>:
> Greetings,
>
> I want to ask for advise on the following issue:
> I fitted a mixed model where I'm trying to explain variation in Litter Sex
> Ratio as a function of social network position. In this model the random
> effect, individual identity, explained none of the variance, and one of the
> reviewers argued that I should exclude it from my model because of these
> reason. I think I should keep it because I have repeated measures. What are
> your thoughts on this matter?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Adriana Maldonado
> Postdoctoral Researcher
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]