[R-sig-ME] Confidence interval around random effect variances in place of p-value
kj@j@o|omon @end|ng |rom gm@||@com
Sat Apr 3 01:37:17 CEST 2021
Thanks. Just to make sure, to declare a statistically NON-significant
random effect variance component, the lower bound of the CI must be EXACTLY
Tha is, for example, a CI like: [.0002, .14] is a statistically significant
random-effect variance component but one that perhaps borders a p-value of
relatively close to but smaller than .05, right?
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 6:19 PM Ben Bolker <bbolker using gmail.com> wrote:
> This seems like a potential can of worms (as indeed are all
> hypothesis tests of null values on a boundary ...) However, in this case
> bootstrapping (provided you have resampled appropriately - you may need
> to do hierarchical bootstrapping ...) seems reasonable, because a null
> model would give you singular fits (i.e. estimated sd=0) half of the
> time ...
> Happy to hear more informed opinions.
> On 4/2/21 6:55 PM, Jack Solomon wrote:
> > Dear All,
> > A colleague of mine suggested that I use the bootstrapped CIs around my
> > model's random effect variances in place of p-values for them.
> > But random effect variances (or sds) start from "0". So, to declare a
> > statistically NON-significant random effect variance component, the
> > lower bound of the CI must be EXACTLY "0", right?
> > Thank you very much,
> > Jack
> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> > _______________________________________________
> > R-sig-mixed-models using r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
> R-sig-mixed-models using r-project.org mailing list
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models