Skip to content
Prev 5468 / 20628 Next

dispersion parameter in count data with lmer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11-03-02 11:53 AM, alexandre martin wrote:
If this is the marginal distribution, it's hard to tell. A certain
fraction of the apparent overdispersion/zero-inflation can be explained
simply by differences in the means among treatment groups or random
effect levels.  Beyond that, a large number of zeros can potentially be
explained either via overdispersion or via zero-inflation (e.g. Warton,
David I. 2005. Many zeros does not mean zero inflation: comparing the
goodness-of-fit of parametric models to multivariate abundance data.
Environmetrics 16, no. 3: 275-289. doi:10.1002/env.702.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/env.702.)

  The easiest way to incorporate overdispersion in the current lme4
framework is to add an observation-level random effect (as discussed in
many posts on the list: also see <http://glmm.wikidot.com>).
This is a quasi-likelihood approach.  You can get an *approximation*
of the residual deviance via

sum(residuals(modelfit,type="pearson")^2)

What you use for numbers of parameters (specifically, how you count
degrees of freedom for random effects) may depend (as also discussed
frequently on this list and on glmm.wikidot.com) on what you are trying
do ...
See answers above ...

  You can use glmmADMB for negative binomial or zero-inflated
distributions (or both) with; at the moment it only allows one random
effect (we're working on it: contact me off-list if you are really
desperate); you can use MCMCglmm for zero-inflated data (MCMCglmm always
includes an observation-level random effect).

  Ben Bolker


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk1wIXsACgkQc5UpGjwzenPJsgCdEUb3PyWsqqKoXbXrYmneij6F
YqgAn1H201bmJJ/j0j490KKAVtnPQf9v
=4Cav
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----