Is it worth testing for overdispersion?
"But, we believe the "quasi" sorts of models are just wrong," No more wrong, necessarily, than any other way of accounting for the relevant source of variation. Quasi models are just less explicit than other models that are used for similar purposes, and therefore less tractable, maybe even unusable, in contexts where it helps to be able to write down the distribution whose likelihood on is working with. They are incompletely specified, straightforward for purposes of doing certain calculations, but awkward if one wants to specify the distributional details of the way that the data were generated. Negative binomial models are not much better in this respect. To understand how the data might be approximately negative binomial, one has to think in terms of a mixing or compounding or waiting time mechanism. In the first two cases, these are of a very particular kind, involving simpler models. The data do not of themselves make it possible to choose between the alternative mechanisms. Look up "negative binomial" on Wikepedia. Negative binomial models seem to me a good way of saying that one has no idea what may be happening! The choice between a quasi approximation and observational level random effects (and sure, the latter have the advantage that the model is fully specified) should really really hinge on which, in any particular application, provides the better model for the variance-covariance structure. In practice, there is rarely enough data that it is possible to tell the difference. It really is a question that "all models are wrong, but some are useful", as in the Box & Draper quote. John Maindonald email: john.maindonald at anu.edu.au phone : +61 2 (6125)3473 fax : +61 2(6125)5549 Centre for Mathematics & Its Applications, Room 1194, John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27) Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200. http://www.maths.anu.edu.au/~johnm
On 24/06/2011, at 4:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Iker Vaquero Alba <karraspito at yahoo.es> wrote:
Dear list: I read some time ago in one of the posts that the option of implementing quasi- families in lmer had been removed. Is that right?
You are confusing 2 things. Overdispersion can occur, it may be a problem. But, we believe the "quasi" sorts of models are just wrong, and if you are going to treat over dispersion, you need to treat it properly, either by changing to a negative binomial model or by introducing a "real" mixed effect, not a quasi approximation of a mixed effect.
Overdispersion would naturally be a property of a non-mixed model,and you can test for it in many ways. Could I suggest to you Simon Jackman's package, "pscl", which includes some nice tools for that. PJ -- Paul E. Johnson Professor, Political Science 1541 Lilac Lane, Room 504 University of Kansas
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models