Dear all,

Thanks for your suggestions.Tim thanks a LOOTfor your suggestion, model 1
and 3 worked perfectly I do not know yet why the second one did not work.

All the best and many thanks again!


2013/5/31 Luis Fernando García Hernández <luysgarcia@gmail.com>

> Dear Friends,
>
> I am new on R so I ask you to excuse me if this question sounds fool. I
> want to see if there is a significativa relationship between the mating
> (response variable) and several explanatory variables such as individual
> number (categorical), leg movemente (continous) and the reuse of
> individuals (categorical). My data looks like this
>
>  Mating ID Replication Shaking  1 M1 R1 10  0 M1 R2 14  0 M2 R1 15  0 M2
> R2 12  1 M3 R1 14  0 M3 R2 17  1 M4 R1 19  0 M4 R2 22  1 M5 R1 18  0 M5 R2
> 16  1 M6 R1 17
>
>
>
> 1 means mating happened, 0 means did not occur.
>
> I am trying to organize the data to apply a GLMM to the data, but have not
>  been able to do it.I followed the model proposed by CRawley for binary
> response with pseudorreplication but does not wok. The script goes like this
>
> model2<-lmer(Mating~Replication+(1 ID),family=binomial,method=”PQL”)
>
> Can somebody tell me what part is wrong and how could I fix it? If you
> know a better method, will be really welcomed!
>
> All the best!
>
>
>
>
>
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

