[R-sig-ME] [R] lme nesting/interaction advice
Federico Calboli
f.calboli at imperial.ac.uk
Sun May 11 20:52:50 CEST 2008
On 10 May 2008, at 07:36, Kingsford Jones wrote:
> Federico,
>
> I think you'll be more likely to receive the type of response you're
> looking for if you formulate your question more clearly. The
> inclusion of "commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code"
> (as is requested at the bottom of every email sent by r-help) is an
> effective way to clarify the issues. Also, when asking a question
> about fitting a model it's helpful to describe the specific research
> questions you want the model to answer.
<snip>
I apprecciate that my description of the *full* model is not 100%
clear, but my main beef was another.
The main point of my question is, having a 3 way anova (or ancova, if
you prefer), with *no* nesting, 2 fixed effects and 1 random effect,
why is it so boneheaded difficult to specify a bog standard fully
crossed model? I'm not talking about some rarified esoteric model
here, we're talking about stuff tought in a first year Biology Stats
course here[1].
Now, to avoid any chances of being misunderstood in my use of the
words 'fully crossed model', what I mean is a simple
y ~ effect1 * effect2 * effect3
with effect3 being random (all all the jazz that comes from this
fact). I fully apprecciate that the only reasonable F-tests would be
for effect1, effect2 and effect1:effect2, but there is no way I can
use lme to specify such simple thing without getting the *wrong*
denDF. I need light on this topic and I'd say it's a general enough
question not to need much more handholding than this.
Having said that, I did look at the mixed-effects mailing list before
posting here, and it looks like it was *not* the right place to post
anyway:
'This mailing list is primarily for useRs and programmeRs interested
in *development* and beta-testing of the lme4 package.'
although the R-Me is now CC'd in this.
I fully apprecciate that R is developed for love, not money, and if I
knew how to write an user friendly frontend for nlme and lme4 (and I
knew how to actually get the model I want) I'd be pretty happy to do
so and submit it as a library. In any case, I feel my complaint is
pefectly valid, because specifying such basic model should ideally
not such a chore, and I think the powers that be might actually find
some use from user feedback.
Once I have sorted how to specify such trivial model I'll face the
horror of the nesting, in any case I attach a toy dataset I created
especially to test how to specify the correct model (silly me).
Best,
Federico Calboli
[1] So much bog standard that the Zar, IV ed, gives a nice table of
how to compute the F-tests correctly, taking into account that one of
the 3 effects is randon (I'll send the exact page and table number
tomorrow, I don't have the book at home).
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: testdat.txt
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-mixed-models/attachments/20080511/0c6d331e/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
--
Federico C. F. Calboli
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
Imperial College, St. Mary's Campus
Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG
Tel +44 (0)20 75941602 Fax +44 (0)20 75943193
f.calboli [.a.t] imperial.ac.uk
f.calboli [.a.t] gmail.com
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models
mailing list