Hi all,

I left out a piece of information tha may or may not be related to the
aforementioned issue.  I am testing for the significance of correlated
random effects, but regardless of their significance, have decided to
proceed with a correlated random effects structure, since this is an
interest of the study.  I read on the glmm.wikidot page that it might be
best to proceed with a random effects structure that represents the study
question and not necessarily what is significant.  I am assuming correlated
random effects falls under this category.

Just out of curiosity, I examined the BLUPs using coef() from the model in
question, except this time I separated the random effects into (1|Male)
+(B+0|Male).  The resulting slopes are identical for all of the males,
which is quite different when random effects are left correlated.  I should
mention that when comparing two models using LRT, where the only difference
is a correlated random effects structure, the results are highly
significant (X2=11.155, P<0.001).  So obviously I should leave random
effects correlated, but I'm wondering if they weren't significant, if I
should change the syntax.

Jacob


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:00 PM, AvianResearchDivision <segerfan83@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for answering my previous questions recently.  I have another
> one for you.  I ran the following model:
>
> model<-lmer(A~B*Year+(B|Male),
>
> where B is a within-individual mean-centered continuous environmental
> variable, year is a factor with 2 levels, and Male is a factor with 59
> levels.
>
> Upon creation of a panel plot  with 'B' on the x axis and 'A' on the
> y-axis and each of the 59 males in a different panel, I noticed that the
> plot patterns don't correspond to the BLUPs from the prinout coef(model).
> For instance, a male that clearly increases 'A' as 'B' increases according
> to the panel plot, decreases 'A' as 'B' increases according to the BLUPs
> from coef(model).  This is the case with several of the males.  Am I doing
> something wrong?  I feel I shouldn't be seeing this pattern.  Any insight
> would be much appreciated.
>
> Thank you,
> Jacob
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

