I am making a little GUI for lme4, and I was wondering if there is a function that automatically detects on which level every variable exists. Furtheremore I got kind of confused about what a random effects model actually calculates.
I have some experience with commercial software packages for multilevel analysis, like HLM6, and I was surprised that lme4 does not require the user to specify the level for every predictor variable. Is this because the function automatically detects the level by testing on which levels the predictor has variance, or is this information simply not needed? I was taught that a crosslevel interaction predicts the regression coefficient of the lower level variable, which is also what is implied by the HLM gui. However, in an lme4 formula, a crosslevel interaction has the same syntax as a regular interaction term. Furthermore, lme4 also allows adding crosslevel interactions without a random slope for the lower level variable. Now I'm confused. Is there a fundamental difference between a crosslevel interaction, or is the same thing as a regular interaction when the model also holds an error term for the lower level variable? |
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Jeroen Ooms <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I am making a little GUI for lme4, and I was wondering if there is a function > that automatically detects on which level every variable exists. > Furtheremore I got kind of confused about what a random effects model > actually calculates. Questions such as this may be answered more quickly if you send them to the R-SIG-Mixed-Models mailing list, which I am cc:ing on this reply. > I have some experience with commercial software packages for multilevel > analysis, like HLM6, and I was surprised that lme4 does not require the user > to specify the level for every predictor variable. Is this because the > function automatically detects the level by testing on which levels the > predictor has variance, or is this information simply not needed? In some ways, exposure to software like HLM or MLWin can be more of a hindrance than a help when learning about mixed models. In presentation of the model and in the software itself these packages emphasize "levels" of random effects leading to the impression that we can only associate random effects with factors that are nested. This is a misconception. There are many cases where is it eminently sensible to associate random effects with factors that are completely crossed ('subject' and 'item' are a prime example) or partially crossed. The archetypal example used in multilevel modeling, achievement scores on students nested in classes nested in schools nested in ..., becomes partially crossed when we track students over time and they move from class to class or school to school. I imagine that the reason for defining the model in terms of nested factors for random effects is computational. If you insist that the random effects must always be defined with respect to nested factors then you can employ methods that take advantage of this, with considerable simplification in the storage and computational burden. The lme4 package adopts a different approach based on sparse matrix storage and decomposition methods. It turns out that these methods are competitive with the best methods for models based on nested factors, in the cases to which they apply, and these methods allow for fitting much more general models. An unfortunate side-effect of the emphasis on levels in MLWin and HLM is the perception that other covariates must be characterized by the level at which they vary, even if these covariates only determine fixed-effects parameters. This is quite untrue and misleading. The only constraints on the covariates and the model matrix for the fixed-effects parameters is that the model matrix must be of full column rank. In models that define random effects for slopes, or in general for the coefficients associated with a covariate, the constraint is that the covariate cannot be constant within each level of the grouping factor of the random effect. For example, we cannot estimate a random effect for the coefficients for sex (M/F) within subject (assuming we do not have transgender people in the study). My advice would be to avoid phrasing the model in terms of levels of random effects. Although I realize that those with a background of using MLWin or HLM may find this more comfortable, I think it would be propagating bad practices and misconceptions. > I was taught that a crosslevel interaction predicts the regression > coefficient of the lower level variable, which is also what is implied by > the HLM gui. However, in an lme4 formula, a crosslevel interaction has the > same syntax as a regular interaction term. Furthermore, lme4 also allows > adding crosslevel interactions without a random slope for the lower level > variable. Now I'm confused. Is there a fundamental difference between a > crosslevel interaction, or is the same thing as a regular interaction when > the model also holds an error term for the lower level variable? > > > > > ----- > Jeroen Ooms * Dept. of Methodology and Statistics * Utrecht University > > Visit http://www.jeroenooms.com www.jeroenooms.com to explore some of my > current projects. > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/lme4-and-Variable-level-detection-tp22262944p22262944.html > Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ______________________________________________ > [hidden email] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > ______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |