anova (lm, lmer ) question
nAGQ=1 and greater than 1 give different results, and the nAGQ=1 matches fairly closely the log likelihood from Stata for 3 quadrature points, so presumably is correct. Stata's Laplace didn't converge with my data. Ken
On 4 October 2014 09:06, Ben Bolker <bbolker at gmail.com> wrote:
romunov <romunov at ...> writes:
FWIW, this is from the glmm faq site <http://glmm.wikidot.com/faq>. How can I test whether a random effect is significant?
...
- *do not* compare lmer models with the corresponding lm fits, or glmer/glm; the log-likelihoods are not commensurate (i.e., they
include
different additive terms)
For what it's worth, I believe this is out of date, _except_ for glmer fits with nAGQ>1. It should be possible to implement anova(<merMod>,<lm>/<glm>) -- it's only a nuisance (sadly, if we were still using S4 classes at this level it would be easier ...) Ben Bolker
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
*Ken Beath* Lecturer Statistics Department MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY NSW 2109, Australia Phone: +61 (0)2 9850 8516 Building E4A, room 526 http://stat.mq.edu.au/our_staff/staff_-_alphabetical/staff/beath,_ken/ CRICOS Provider No 00002J This message is intended for the addressee named and may...{{dropped:9}}