Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101060928460.13875@orpheus.qimr.edu.au>
Date: 2011-01-05T23:33:28Z
From: David Duffy
Subject: NAs in fixed effects
In-Reply-To: <1B19B5CCE30E1A41A63F856C83DD3D40391BC05C4F@exmbx2.ad.slu.se>
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Henrik Thurfjell wrote:
> I have a rather large dataset which needs one random effect to be
> analysed properly (group). I also have many explanatory variables, each
> with a few NAs at different places. I can easily enough fit a model with
> 2 fixed effects, but as the number of fixed effects increase so does tha
> NAs as they are not in the same rows. I am no statistician, and this may
> be a naive question, but is there a way to fit each fixed effect with
> its full data?
One way out is to impute the missing data, recalling you would have had
the same problem if you wanted to just fit a fixed effects model.
--
| David Duffy (MBBS PhD) ,-_|\
| email: davidD at qimr.edu.au ph: INT+61+7+3362-0217 fax: -0101 / *
| Epidemiology Unit, Queensland Institute of Medical Research \_,-._/
| 300 Herston Rd, Brisbane, Queensland 4029, Australia GPG 4D0B994A v