[R-sig-ME] What to do when a factor term has several p values?
Greg Snow
Greg.Snow at imail.org
Thu Jan 20 19:10:53 CET 2011
If there were set rules that we could just tell you, then we could also just tell the computer and there would be no need for you (or any other human). To answer your questions does not require a set of rules, but understanding your data and your question(s) about the data. Things that you should know much better than us or the computer.
Does it even make sense to collapse partial factors? Or should you only be considering a whole factor?
Do the interactions make sense scientifically? Which is of more interest to you?
Why are you simplifying the model? Stepwise procedures bias the final estimates and often don't answer the real question(s) of interest.
Have you considered that the p-values that you are looking at may not be as meaningful as you had hoped?
Learn about your data and the questions that are of interest to you before worrying about set rules that lead off on probably meaningless tangents.
--
Gregory (Greg) L. Snow Ph.D.
Statistical Data Center
Intermountain Healthcare
greg.snow at imail.org
801.408.8111
> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-sig-mixed-models-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-sig-mixed-
> models-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Toby Marthews
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:45 AM
> To: r-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org
> Subject: [R-sig-ME] What to do when a factor term has several p values?
>
> Dear Very-patient Mixed-modelling list,
>
> Thank you very much for your replies to my nesting question earlier
> today. EXTREMEly helpful! It seems I'm tripping over a lot of basic
> misconceptions with this LME application.
>
> I am running an lme fit with two categorical fixed effects (in this
> case roostsitu which is roosting situation of some birds - nestbox,
> tree, inside or other - and mnth=Jan,Nov) and I am trying to simplify
> the model, i.e. considering whether there is a significant interaction
> between mnth and roostsitu when measuring the mass of these birds.
> According to the Fixed effects table of the summary.lme I have 3 p-
> values (0.1802, 0.3683 and 0.5474) so there's no significant
> interaction for any of the levels of roostsitu (readout below).
>
> I have tried and failed to create an example to show this, but say
> there were another factor FF in the LME model and I were trying to
> follow a model simplification process based on these p-values. Further
> suppose that the p-value of roostsitu:FF were 0.400. There's a question
> here whether I would remove roostsitu:FF or roostsitu:mnth from the
> model first during my model simplification process.
>
> (1) If I'm always supposed to consider the maximum p-value across all
> levels of a factor, then roostsitu:mnth scores 0.5474 which is >0.400
> and it goes out first
> (2) If I'm always supposed to take the mean p-value then roostsitu:mnth
> will score mean(c(0.1802,0.3683,0.5474))=0.3653 which is <0.400 so
> roostsitu:FF will go out first.
> (3) Or some other calculation?
>
> Is there a basic principle or rule I'm missing here regarding what to
> do in the case of multi-level factors? I would really appreciate
> someone telling me which option is the right one. I have just spent >1
> hour searching a large number of websites and leafed through Pinheiro &
> Bates again but can't find an answer to this. Lots of websites say to
> use p-values (referencing Crawley generally) but I need a bit more
> detail than is in Crawley, it seems.
>
> Thanks very much!
> Toby Marthews
>
>
> >
> lmeres=lme(fixed=stmass~mnth*roostsitu,random=~1|subject,na.action=na.e
> xclude)
>
> > summary(lmeres)
> Linear mixed-effects model fit by REML
> Data: NULL
> AIC BIC logLik
> 449.6082 472.3749 -214.8041
>
> Random effects:
> Formula: ~1 | subject
> (Intercept) Residual
> StdDev: 0.5868961 4.165333
>
> Fixed effects: stmass ~ mnth * roostsitu
> Value Std.Error DF t-value p-value
> (Intercept) 83.6 1.330205 36 62.84747 0.0000
> mnthJan 7.2 1.862793 36 3.86516 0.0004
> roostsitunest-box -4.2 1.881193 36 -2.23263 0.0319
> roostsituinside -5.0 1.881193 36 -2.65789 0.0117
> roostsituother -8.2 1.881193 36 -4.35893 0.0001
> mnthJan:roostsitunest-box 3.6 2.634388 36 1.36654 0.1802
> mnthJan:roostsituinside 2.4 2.634388 36 0.91103 0.3683
> mnthJan:roostsituother 1.6 2.634388 36 0.60735 0.5474
> Correlation:
> (Intr) mnthJn rstst- rststn rststt mntJ:-
> mnthJn:rststn
> mnthJan -0.700
> roostsitunest-box -0.707 0.495
> roostsituinside -0.707 0.495 0.500
> roostsituother -0.707 0.495 0.500 0.500
> mnthJan:roostsitunest-box 0.495 -0.707 -0.700 -0.350 -0.350
> mnthJan:roostsituinside 0.495 -0.707 -0.350 -0.700 -0.350 0.500
> mnthJan:roostsituother 0.495 -0.707 -0.350 -0.350 -0.700 0.500
> 0.500
>
> Standardized Within-Group Residuals:
> Min Q1 Med Q3 Max
> -1.75548143 -0.76870435 -0.08640394 0.70218233 2.16928300
>
> Number of Observations: 80
> Number of Groups: 40
>
> > anova(lmeres)
> numDF denDF F-value p-value
> (Intercept) 1 36 31143.554 <.0001
> mnth 1 36 95.458 <.0001
> roostsitu 3 36 10.614 <.0001
> mnth:roostsitu 3 36 0.657 0.5838
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models
mailing list