[R-sig-ME] Question to lme4: Higher Level Response

[Jake Westfall]

Elisabeth,


You might find this brief stats.stackexchange.com answer (and comments) that I wrote useful:

http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/169512/multilevel-model-with-responses-only-at-level-2/169585#169585


Happy to hear other perspectives on this issue.


Jake

________________________________________
From: R-sig-mixed-models <r-sig-mixed-models-bounces at r-project.org> on behalf of Douglas Bates <bates at stat.wisc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 11:49 AM
To: Elisabeth Schubach
Cc: r-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-sig-ME] Question to lme4: Higher Level Response

It is better to send such questions to the R-SIG-Mixed-Models mailing list,
which I have taken the liberty of cc:ing on this response.  Many of the
readers of that list will be able to respond more quickly and knowledgeably
than I can.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:42 PM Elisabeth Schubach <
elisabeth.schubach at uni-jena.de> wrote:

>
> Dear Dr. Bates,
>
> I have got a question to lme4: Is it possible to fit a model with a
> response on a higher level by predictors of lower levels? Or do I then
> run into the problem of atomistic fallacy? And the only way is to turn
> the model around and fit the lower level response by higher level
> predictors? I understand that in that case, pinning avoids the
> ecological fallacy.
>
> Thank you and kind regards,
> Elisabeth Schubach
>

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

_______________________________________________
R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models