[R-sig-ME] Model specification: crossed vs nested factors
Richard Feldman
richard.feldman at mail.mcgill.ca
Wed Aug 25 00:22:46 CEST 2010
Ah, yes, I forgot one key piece of information. The treatments were
added sequentially in time at the site. In Site #1, treatment A was
applied, measurements taken, then treatment B was applied, etc. A proper
control period (4 days) occurred between the application of the
treatment. This is why I see my design as analogous to a growth model,
though the treatment does vary in time.
Dennis Murphy wrote:
> Hi:
>
> No direct answers, but some questions...
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Richard Feldman
> <richard.feldman at mail.mcgill.ca <mailto:richard.feldman at mail.mcgill.ca>>
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am at my wit's end with regards to specifying my model, perhaps
> because I am confused about nested vs. crossed grouping factors.
>
> My dataset has 16 sites and within each site I applied 3 treatments
> (A, B, C). The sites differ based on elevation. I originally thought
> I had a hierarchical (nested) model and specified the full model as
> such:
>
> How did you assign treatments within site? Were they assigned to
> divisions of a site (e.g., subplots) or were they assigned to the entire
> site at different times, or ??? This matters in the analysis...a lot.
>
>
>
> model.n <- glmer(Y ~ Treatment*Elevation + (Treatment|Site), data=Data)
>
> The data also seemed analogous to a longitudinal model where instead
> of subject I have site and instead of time/days I have treatment. I
> am not totally clear on why this analogy breaks down.
>
>
> Longitudinal models involve a time element, usually within
> subject/primary unit, and constitute repeated measurements on that unit
> over time with the same treatment conditions and possibly time-varying
> covariates. How would such a scenario correspond to your design?
>
>
>
> After extensive reading, it seems that because each site receives
> the same three treatments, my model is crossed and not nested. Hence
> the specification should be:
>
>
> It's not obvious at this point whether you have crossed or nested
> effects. It's entirely possible that site could be a blocking factor. Go
> back to the initial question.
>
>
> model.c <- glmer(Y ~ Treatment*Elevation + (1|Site) + (1|Treatment),
> data=Data)
>
> I have three questions:
>
> 1. Is model.c indeed the correct specification given my data?
>
> 2. Given model.c, does the treatment by elevation interaction
> capture this cross-scale effect, even though the former is a level-1
> predictor (varies within site) and the latter a level-2 predictor
> (varies among sites)?
>
> 3. The output from model.c gives zero variance for the random effect
> of treatment. I assume this is because there are only three levels.
> Hence, treatment can only be a fixed variable. I have no problem
> with that. What I am confused about is how I can discover how much
> the treatment-response relationship varies among sites. I originally
> thought that (Treatment|Site) made sense because the
> treatment-response slope could vary based on site.
>
>
> I don't think we have enough information yet to make a determination on
> any of your questions.
>
> Hope this helps somewhat,
> Dennis
>
>
> I appreciate all your help in getting me out of this mental
> quagmire. Thank you!
>
> --
> Richard Feldman, PhD Candidate
> Dept. of Biological Sciences, McGill University
> W3/5 Stewart Biology Building
> 1205 Docteur Penfield
> Montreal, QC H3A 1B1
> 514-212-3466
> richard.feldman at mail.mcgill.ca <mailto:richard.feldman at mail.mcgill.ca>
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org
> <mailto:R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org> mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
>
>
--
Richard Feldman, PhD Candidate
Dept. of Biological Sciences, McGill University
W3/5 Stewart Biology Building
1205 Docteur Penfield
Montreal, QC H3A 1B1
514-212-3466
richard.feldman at mail.mcgill.ca
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models
mailing list