[R-sig-ME] Odd ANOVA degrees of freedom with ZI component of glmmTMB model
Ben Bolker
bbo|ker @end|ng |rom gm@||@com
Thu Jan 12 00:24:57 CET 2023
It would be great if you can send along a reproducible example,
privately if necessary. It's always alarming to have undiagnosed
weirdness happening, even if you can make it go away by limiting the
problem ...
On 2023-01-11 6:08 p.m., Elliot Johnston wrote:
> Thanks for getting back to me Ben and John. As I was making a
> reproducible example for this thread, I dropped all of the dataframe
> columns not used in the analysis and ended up trimming the dataframe
> down from 35 columns to 6. The zero-inflated ANOVA output now appears
> more sensical:
>
> > car::Anova(m1, component = "zi")
>
> Analysis of Deviance Table (Type II Wald chisquare tests)
>
> Response: Count
>
> Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
> Time_Period 1.9271 2 0.38154
> Assignment 1.5043 1 0.22001
> Time_Period:Assignment 7.9605 2 0.01868 *
>
> The statistics for the interaction are the same as before, but the Time
> Period and Assignment terms now make more sense. No observations were
> dropped and the model specification remained the same, I just dropped a
> number of columns. Seems strange, but I have the desired output so I
> don't feel the need to troubleshoot the source of the error at this
> point. Hope that's alright with you both. Thanks again for getting back
> to me.
>
> -Elliot
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 2:52 PM John Fox <jfox using mcmaster.ca
> <mailto:jfox using mcmaster.ca>> wrote:
>
> Dear Elliot and Ben,
>
> Yes, something definitely seems wrong here, and as usual a reproducible
> example would help. Given that, and as soon as I have some time, I'll
> try to see what went wrong, but I won't be able to do that this week.
>
> My apologies for the problem,
> John
>
> John Fox, Professor Emeritus
> McMaster University
> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
> web: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/
> <https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/>
>
> On 2023-01-11 1:12 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
> > The difference in 'Df' between the two components, which
> appear to
> > have the same fixed-effect model specification, is definitely
> surprising.
> >
> > It's not surprising that chisq=9.46 with 2 df could have a
> lower
> > p-value than chisq=9.89 with 3 df; the larger the df (i.e. the
> larger
> > the difference in the number of parameters/complexity between the
> two
> > models implicitly being compared), the more dispersed the null
> > distribution of the deviance difference (=='chisq').
> >
> > To troubleshoot I would look at the guts of
> glmmTMB:::Anova.glmmTMB
> > and see what's going on. I'm not claiming that will be obvious:
> if you
> > can post a *reproducible* example to the glmmTMB issues list I'd be
> > happy to take a look.
> >
> > On 2023-01-11 12:14 PM, Elliot Johnston wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I am using the car package to run ANOVAs (type II Wald chi square
> >> tests) on
> >> the following model:
> >>
> >> m1 <- glmmTMB(Count ~ Time_Period*Assignment + (1|Region/Site_ID),
> >> ziformula = ~ Time_Period*Assignment +
> >> (1|Region/Site_ID),
> >> data = allbirds, family = poisson)
> >>
> >> Time Period has three levels and Assignment has two levels. When
> running
> >> the ANOVA on the conditional component -- car::Anova(m1, component =
> >> "cond") -- the degrees of freedom in the output is as I would
> expected
> >> (n-1):
> >>
> >> Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
> >> Time_Period 0.9105 2 0.63429
> >> Assignment 2.1043 1 0.14689
> >> Time_Period:Assignment 6.8486 2 0.03257 *
> >>
> >> But when I run the ANOVA for the zero-inflated component --
> >> car::Anova(m1,
> >> component = "zi") -- the output looks strange:
> >>
> >> Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
> >> Time_Period 9.8876 3 0.019546 *
> >> Assignment 9.4648 2 0.008805 **
> >> Time_Period:Assignment 7.9605 2 0.018681 *
> >>
> >> Why would the degrees of freedom change? FWIW this df
> discrepancy between
> >> the conditional and ZI ANOVAs does *not* happen when running the
> above
> >> glmmTMB model with subsetted data frames based on different bird
> >> guilds. It
> >> also seems strange that between the Time Period and Assignment
> terms the
> >> smaller chi square value leads to greater statistical
> significance. Do
> >> you
> >> agree that something seems wrong here or am I misunderstanding
> what is
> >> going on under the hood? Any ideas on how to troubleshoot?
> >>
> >> Thank you!
> >>
> >> -Elliot
> >>
> >> [[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>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
(Acting) Graduate chair, Mathematics & Statistics
> E-mail is sent at my convenience; I don't expect replies outside of
working hours.
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models
mailing list