[R-sig-ME] Is crossed random-effect the only choice?
Ben Bolker
bbo|ker @end|ng |rom gm@||@com
Thu Jul 15 15:46:21 CEST 2021
On 7/15/21 9:44 AM, Jack Solomon wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> In the case of #3 in your response, if the researcher intends to
> generalize beyond the 3 levels of the categorical factor/ predictor X,
> then can s/he use: ~ (1|H) + (1|X)?
>
> If yes, then H and X will be crossed?
>
> Thanks,
> Jack
Yes, and yes.
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021, 10:36 PM Jack Solomon <kj.jsolomon using gmail.com
> <mailto:kj.jsolomon using gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> Thank you for your informative response. I think # 4 is what matches
> my situation.
>
> Thanks again, Jack
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 8:30 PM Ben Bolker <bbolker using gmail.com
> <mailto:bbolker using gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The "crossed vs random" terminology is only relevant in
> models with
> more than one grouping variable. I would call (1|X) " a random
> effect
> of X" or more precisely "a random-intercept model with grouping
> variable X"
>
> However, your question is a little unclear to me. Is X a
> grouping
> variable or a predictor variable (numeric or categorical) that
> varies
> across groups?
>
> I can think of four possibilities.
>
> 1. X is the grouping variable (e.g. "hospital"). Then ~ (1|X)
> is a
> model that describes variation in the model intercept / baseline
> value,
> across hospitals.
>
> 2. X is a continuous covariate (e.g. annual hospital
> budget). Then if
> H is the factor designating hospitals, we want ~ X + (1|H)
> (plus any
> other fixed effects of interest. (It doesn't make sense / isn't
> identifiable to fit a random-slopes model ~ (H | X) because budgets
> don't vary within hospitals.
>
> 3. X is a categorical / factor predictor (e.g. hospital size class
> {small, medium, large} with multiple hospitals measured in each
> size
> class: ~ X + (1|H) (the same as #2).
>
> 4. X is a categorical predictor with unique values for each
> hospital
> (e.g. postal code). Then X is redundant with H, you shouldn't
> try to
> include them both in the same model.
>
> On 7/10/21 4:55 PM, Jack Solomon wrote:
> > Hello Allo,
> >
> > In my two-level data structure, I have a cluster-level
> variable (called
> > "X"; one that doesn't vary in any cluster). If I intend to
> generalize
> > beyond X's current possible levels, then, I should take X as
> a random
> > effect.
> >
> > However, because "X" doesn't vary in any cluster, therefore,
> such a random
> > effect necessarily must be a crossed random effect (e.g., "~
> 1 | X"),
> > correct?
> >
> > If yes, then what is "X" crossed with?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Jack
> >
> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > R-sig-mixed-models using r-project.org
> <mailto:R-sig-mixed-models using r-project.org> mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
> <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models>
> >
>
> --
> Dr. Benjamin Bolker
> Professor, Mathematics & Statistics and Biology, McMaster University
> Director, School of Computational Science and Engineering
> Graduate chair, Mathematics & Statistics
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-mixed-models using r-project.org
> <mailto:R-sig-mixed-models using r-project.org> mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
> <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models>
>
--
Dr. Benjamin Bolker
Professor, Mathematics & Statistics and Biology, McMaster University
Director, School of Computational Science and Engineering
Graduate chair, Mathematics & Statistics
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models
mailing list