Thanks Rolf for catching up my typo, I was referring to Type III being controversial. and my messed up between the 2 professors (they wrote the famous book together, :-)


John



________________________________
From: Rolf Turner <r.turner@auckland.ac.nz>


 <r-sig-mixed-models@r-project.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [R-sig-ME] Repeated measures ANOVA using lmer, nlme, and geepack


On 11/08/11 06:15, array chip wrote: 
I am struggling to compare between R and SAS as well (see my other post), so I tried a number of things and was able to get close between the 2. But with your questions below, first of all, anova() in R report Type I SS while in SAS output Type III SS (and Type II SS in R is hugely controversial especially with interaction term in the model. Prof Ripley has an article about it which you can search to find out). 
    <SNIP>

Just a couple of minor points of correction.  It is ``Type III''
    sums of squares that are ``controversial'',
not ``Type II''.  Type II sums of squares are quite
    straightforward.  And I think that you are probably
referring to the article by Bill Venables, rather than by Prof.
    Ripley (who co-authored MASS with Dr.
Venables).  The article to which I refer is ``Exegesis on linear
    models'':

        www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS3/Exegeses.pdf

    cheers,

        Rolf Turner
	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]


