Skip to content

Is anyone using the lmList() function in the lme4 package?

11 messages · Douglas Bates, Reinhold Kliegl, Jonathan Baron +7 more

#
When we wrote the nlme package we tried to be very careful about
starting estimates and created the lmList function to allow evaluation
of coefficients from within-group linear fits.  It turns out that it
is most useful for longitudinal data where there are enough
observations on each subject to do within-subject fits; that is, for
data like the sleepstudy data.  Subsequent developments have made it
easy enough to fit the mixed model reliably without needing a lot of
preliminary work to get starting estimates.  (Similarly, the
groupedData class was a good idea at the time but no longer
necessary.)

Would anyone miss the lmList function if it was removed from future
versions of lme4?
#
We are using lmList() in the context of NLMM.  How easy will it be to  
get good starting values for nlmer?

Reinhold Kliegl
On 26.06.2010, at 18:34, Douglas Bates wrote:

            
#
I use lmList() a fair bit because it is sort of a standard approach to
data analysis in psychology when you can fit the model to each subject
and then test the coefficients across subjects, or look at the
correlations of the coefficients with something else.

HOWEVER, for years before lme4 existed I was doing exactly the same
thing with a loop.  Thus, lmList() is merely a convenience for people
like me.  So the answer is that I WOULD BE HAPPY TO LIVE WITHOUT IT.

Jon

P.S.  I hope that, eventually, lme4a works with languageR's
pvals.fnc().  Right now it doesn't, and this is probably not your
problem but theirs.
#
I use it - more for exploratory analysis than to get starting estimates, 
to decide what might be a good starting point for the random structure 
of (g)lmm's. It is also very convenient to explain the concepts of mixed 
models, e.g. with MSc students with a biological background. Indeed, I 
would miss the lmList function if it was removed from future versions of 
lme4.

All the best,

Renaud

Douglas Bates a ?crit :

  
    
#
Douglas Bates wrote:
Speaking as one is relatively new to mixed models and not altogether
comfortable with them at times, I have found it useful to understand
my data.  With some data I was having trouble with (estimated
correlations of 1) it was very handy for producing caterpiller plots
to see how slope and intercept were related.

Of course, if I'm the only one who feels this way, my amount of usage
is not nearly sufficient to demand you keep lmList. :-)
#
Douglas Bates <bates at ...> writes:
I would vote for keeping it, too.  Anything that facilitates exploring the
data is generally useful.  I always found the didactic use of lmList to motivate
the selection of variables that might be treated as random effects, in the
Pinheiro & Bates book very helpful.  I'm using the lme4 version in a chapter that
I'm writing currently, so have a vested interest in knowing whether it will
be deprecated, as well.  

Ken
#
Not that I have used it too much, but I would prefer keeping it (for 
teaching, practical reasons...)


El 26/06/2010 18:34, Douglas Bates escribi?:

  
    
#
I would argue that it should be removed because it's pretty trivial to
replace with a combination of split and lapply, or if you prefer,
dlply from plyr.

Hadley
On Saturday, June 26, 2010, Douglas Bates <bates at stat.wisc.edu> wrote:

  
    
#
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Hadley Wickham <hadley at rice.edu> wrote:
Note that it supports a pool= argument.
#
Hi All

  While it is very easy to write a function to perform the tasks of
lmList(), from the point of view of teaching students who are still
learning to write their own functions, it sometimes helps to have a
function that already does it well. I use lmList() as I teach, for
similar reasons as were mentioned earlier in this thread. So I "vote"
to keep it.

Cheers

Ian
On 26 June 2010 18:02, Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck at gmail.com> wrote:

  
    
#
Thanks for all the responses, which do answer my question of whether
lmList is used and should be retained.  I will do so.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Ian Dworkin <idworkin at msu.edu> wrote: