On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 5:27 PM, David Winsemius <dwinsemius@comcast.net>wrote:

>
> > Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I'm under re-review at a
> > journal that requires effect size measures.
>
> The journal's purpose of requiring effect sizes is to prevent authors from
> focussing solely getting p-values, and then failing to explain the
> implications of model estimates. Don't you have access to the fixef and
> ranef functions?
>

I doubt that's the purpose for this journal. In my field, researchers are
pretty much only interested in interpreting the implications of the model
estimates, and frankly I'm not sure what the alternative is. Quite frankly,
most researchers in my field don't care about effect size one way or
another, and those that do are mainly using it in conjunction with
p-values, etc., to determine the likelihood the null hypothesis is true.

I'm working with a 4x3x2 design. Let's call them factors A, B, and C. What
I need to report is the size of the effect of A, B, C, and their
interactions, which I won't get from fixef (so far as I know). I would just
use an ANOVA but I have an unbalanced design.

(Even if the estimates for the individual fixed effects in the regression
were theoretically interesting -- they aren't -- large regression tables
simply aren't published in my field, and it would be a long, probably
unsuccessful slog trying to get one published.)

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

