glmer and lme4 - Quick question
What 0+ is doing is removing the intercept random effect. It is then included with the 1|Region term, however there is now no correlation between the slope and intercept random effects. I can understand why you don't want to do that as including something like (x1+x2+x3|Region) means estimating a large covariance matrix for the random effects. However the bad news if the correlations are not zero then it will give lots of estimation problems and probably some strange results. Your convergence problems may well be due to not having a complex enough model. Opinions vary on what to do. Either start with something simple and keep adding, or start with all the random effects and remove until it converges and then remove the unimportant random effects.
On 24 June 2015 at 10:10, Joseph Maina <mainajm at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I am running glmer in a model selection framework with >30 explanatory
variables, where I am first generating all possible combinations of
variables but with a multicollinearity test results coinstraint, before
fitting the gmler. I am also including random effects of ?Year' (~20) and
Regions (~13). The objective is to find the best model and determine the
relative influence among predictors, and also to predict the model over
space to global pixels.
My question regards the model structure of lme4 that I should adopt. I am
currently fitting my model in the following structure:
m1<-glmer(y ~ x1 + x2 + x3 + (1 |Region) + (1 | Year) +(1|Region),
family=binomial('logit'),data=all.data)
However, I have been advised that in order to have a varying intercept and
slope among my Regions (one of the random effects), I should fit my model
as follows:
m1<-glmer(y ~ x1+ (0+x1|Region) + x2 + (0+x2|Region) + x3 + (0+x3|Region)
+ (1 | Year) +(1|Region), family=binomial('logit'),data=all.data)
The latter is a slightly complex structure and I am running into
convergence issues. I was wondering what are the merits of using either
structure?. Also in the second structure, I am not sure what ?0+? means or
what value it adds to the analyses. I also found that when using the first
model structure if I take out the ?Region? random effect, the estimates for
some of the variables change signs, and therefore could have an
implicaition on the interpretation.
Thanks,
Joseph
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ 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 Level 2, AHH 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}}