Anova (type III-tests) table based on LRT for glmmTMB models
A model that contains an interaction without the main effects that are included in the interaction is unusual. Before I would run, or publish, such a model, I would think long and hard. John John David Sorkin M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Medicine Chief, Biostatistics and Informatics University of Maryland School of Medicine Division of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine Baltimore VA Medical Center 10 North Greene Street GRECC (BT/18/GR) Baltimore, MD 21201-1524 (Phone) 410-605-7119 (Fax) 410-605-7913 (Please call phone number above prior to faxing)
From: R-sig-mixed-models <r-sig-mixed-models-bounces at r-project.org> on behalf of John Maindonald <john.maindonald at anu.edu.au>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 6:44 PM
To: Ben Bolker
Cc: R SIG Mixed Models
Subject: Re: [R-sig-ME] Anova (type III-tests) table based on LRT for glmmTMB models
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 6:44 PM
To: Ben Bolker
Cc: R SIG Mixed Models
Subject: Re: [R-sig-ME] Anova (type III-tests) table based on LRT for glmmTMB models
CAUTION: This message originated from a non UMB, UMSOM, FPI, or UMMS email system. Whether the sender is known or not known, hover over any links before clicking and use caution opening attachments. On Type III tests, I note that pp.24-26 of the document give a comprehensive account. afex::introduction-mixed-models<http://127.0.0.1:11966/help/library/afex/doc/introduction-mixed-models.pdf> NB that in suitably ?balanced? designs, type III sums of squares are not in contention. The complication is that a term A:B, when A and B do not appear in the model formula, results in general in fitted values and in a contribution to the anova sum of squares (this gets more complicated in multi-level models) that depend on how A and B are parameterized (?treatment?, or ?sum?, or ? contrasts). One needs to think very carefully about the specific meaning that might attach to any specific type 3 test and/or to the estimates that remain when lower order terms are left out. In models with several factors and/or covariates, the complications of interpretation that result will often be just one more unhelpful source of confusion. Any model selection process changes the meaning that should be attached to the p-values in the model that remains, with the extent of the change cumulating as more terms are omitted. The result may readily be that p-values that appear ?highly significant?, in the model that results and with no account taken of selection effects, should really suggest ?not at all significant?. John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au<mailto:john.maindonald at anu.edu.au> On 31/07/2018, at 09:40, Ben Bolker <bbolker at gmail.com<mailto:bbolker at gmail.com>> wrote: car::Anova only does Wald tests. I don't know whether drop1() works, although if not it would be worth seeing what it would take to make it work. "Type 3" ANOVA is tricky in R, even with drop1() constructs, because it sometimes requires constructing model matrices that R won't easily provide. For example: if A and B are both factors, then ~A:B as constructed by model.matrix() will still include the main effects. The only way I know of to do it is to use ~1+A+B+A:B (or equivalently ~A*B) and then drop or zero-out the unwanted columns of the model matrix. afex::mixed has some nice type-3 constructs, I don't remember exactly how they work. On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:05 AM Mollie Brooks <mollieebrooks at gmail.com<mailto:mollieebrooks at gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Guillaume, I?m not very experienced with Anova, but I know the development version of glmmTMB supports car::Anova. Ben recently added this functionality. To install the development version try devtools::install_github("glmmTMB/glmmTMB/glmmTMB") or see further instructions here https://github.com/glmmTMB/glmmTMB After installing, check out vignette("model_evaluation") cheers, Mollie On 30Jul 2018, at 10:59, Guillaume Adeux <guillaumesimon.a2 at gmail.com<mailto:guillaumesimon.a2 at gmail.com>> wrote: Hello everyone, I'm looking for a method/function in order to produce an Anova table based on Likelihood Ratio Tests (LRT) for a glmmTMB model (R software). In my case it is with a beta distribution and log link. My response is a ratio (%) in a repeated measures design. - the function Anova() from the {car} package doesn't not run on single models (i.e. Anova(mod)). It only allows comparison of two models (i.e. Anova(mod,mod1)). - for glmer models, I was used to using the mixed() function from the {afex} packages which produced Anova tables (type III tests) based on LRT (or parametric bootstrap) for glmms. Could anyone shed their on light on a function like mixed() which would run on glmmTMB objects or on a procedure to do this by hand? I suppose if only one fixed predictor was present in the model, this would be simple by comparing it to a null model but my model contains an interaction. Hence, I am incable of comparing a model A+B+B:C with a model containing A+B:C. Thanks for your interest. Guillaume ADEUX [[alternative HTML version deleted]] _______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org<mailto:R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org> mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models [[alternative HTML version deleted]] _______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org<mailto:R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org> mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models _______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org<mailto:R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org> mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models [[alternative HTML version deleted]] _______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models