________________________________________
Van: r-sig-mixed-models-bounces at r-project.org
[r-sig-mixed-models-bounces at r-project.org] namens Yasuaki SHINOHARA
[y.shinohara at aoni.waseda.jp]
Verzonden: vrijdag 3 oktober 2014 6:22
Aan: r-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org
Onderwerp: [R-sig-ME] Model comparisons
Dear all,
Could I ask a very basic question about glmer?
I am wondering how important using the best-fitting model is.
(1)
Please imagine I have three fixed factors "A", "B" and "C" in a
logistic mixed effects model.
I want to test these main effects and their all possible
interactions.
However, I can include another factor "D" (e.g., age) in which I am
not interested. If I include the fixed factor "D" in
the model, the model fits significantly better than the model
without the factor "D".
I know I should use the best-fitting model, and report all the
results
including the factor "D", although the results are slightly
different
from the model which does not include the factor "D".
However, I also think that including unnecessary factors would
distract readers from the main point, so it may be good to analyze
data without the factor "D".
Could I ask your opinions?
(2)
Also, I do not understand why the results are so different, if I
change the relation in one of the factors.
For example, the model including the fixed factors of "A","B","C" and
"log(age)" is significantly better than another model including the
fixed factors of "A","B","C" and "poly(age,2)".
This difference (log(age) vs. poly(age,2)) affects the results of
other factors of "A", "B" and "C" as below.
Could you please explain why?
In terms of AIC value, MODEL1 is better. However, the results of
MODEL1 do not look correct.
Why is it?
MODEL1<-glmer(binomial_response~A*B*log(age)+(1|X)+(1+B|Y)+(1+B|Z),
family=binomial,
data=ALLDATA,control=glmerControl(optimizer="bobyqa"))
MODEL2<-glmer(binomial_response~A*B*poly(age,2)+(1|X)+(1+B|Y)+(1+B|Z),
family=binomial,
data=ALLDATA,control=glmerControl(optimizer="bobyqa"))
Anova(MODEL1,type=3)
Analysis of Deviance Table (Type III Wald chisquare tests)
Response: prod_corr
Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
(Intercept) 0.8155 1 0.366503
A 0.0059 1 0.938896
B 0.7490 1 0.386791
log(age) 8.6887 1 0.003202 **
A:B 0.0044 1 0.947053
A:log(age) 0.2471 1 0.619110
B:log(age) 2.5704 1 0.108881
A:B:log(age) 0.4881 1 0.484767
---
Signif. codes: 0 ?***? 0.001 ?**? 0.01 ?*? 0.05 ?.? 0.1 ? ? 1
Anova(MODEL2, type=3)
Analysis of Deviance Table (Type III Wald chisquare tests)
Response: prod_corr
Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
(Intercept) 41.2696 1 1.326e-10 ***
A 6.4384 1 0.0111677 *
B 13.0042 1 0.0003108 ***
poly(age, 2) 14.2490 2 0.0008051 ***
A:B 14.2547 1 0.0001597 ***
A:poly(age, 2) 1.1039 2 0.5758358
B:poly(age, 2) 3.2066 2 0.2012318
A:B:poly(age, 2) 0.3203 2 0.8520201
---
Signif. codes: 0 ?***? 0.001 ?**? 0.01 ?*? 0.05 ?.? 0.1 ? ? 1
Best wishes,
Yasu
_______________________________________________
R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
* * * * * * * * * * * * * D I S C L A I M E R * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
Dit bericht en eventuele bijlagen geven enkel de visie van de
schrijver weer en binden het INBO onder geen enkel beding, zolang dit
bericht niet bevestigd is door een geldig ondertekend document.
The views expressed in this message and any annex are purely those
of the writer and may not be regarded as stating an official position
of INBO, as long as the message is not confirmed by a duly signed
document.