Skip to content

Cumulative link mixed model appropriate in a 2x4 design?

4 messages · Klemens Weigl, Jarrod Hadfield, Rune Haubo

#
Hi,

With normal response, you are right in thinking that you don't need a  
cumulative link mixed model. A linear mixed model (with group as a  
random term?) should suffice.

Cheers,

Jarrod





Quoting Klemens Weigl <klemens.weigl at gmail.com> on Wed, 12 Sep 2012  
15:58:44 +0200:

  
    
7 days later
#
On 20 September 2012 12:22, Klemens Weigl <klemens.weigl at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, essentially you would have to do that in order to apply clmm or
clmm2. I would however not use a mixed effects model for these data at
all. If you had more than one observation per mice, that could be
relevant, but not here. That means I would also treat the time
variable as fixed. I would also start out with a linear model / 2-way
ANOVA. A cumulative link model on a coarsened version of 'size' could
possibly be relevant if you are concerned about the normality
assumption (but a transformation of 'size' might just be better) or if
you are just dying to get predictions in terms of probabilities. I
would be more concerned about correlation between time points, in
which case gls from the nlme package could add an AR1 structure to the
model, but it doesn't sound as if you have a dataset large enough to
identify a correlation structure and it might not be important.
As it says: the response needs to be a factor for a clm or a clmm to be fitted.

Hope this helps,
Rune