I have longitudinal data from two surveys and I want to do a pre-post analysis. Normally, I would use survey::svyglm() or svyVGAM::svy_vglm (for multinomial family) to include sampling weights, but these functions don't account for the random effects. On the other hand, lme4::lmer accounts for the repeated measures, but not the sampling weights.
For continuous outcomes, I understand that I can do
w_data_wide <- svydesign(ids = ~1, data = data_wide, weights = data_wide$weight)
svyglm((post-pre) ~ group, w_data_wide)
and get the same estimates that I would get if I could use lmer(outcome ~ group*time + (1|id), data_long) with weights [please correct me if I'm wrong].
However, for categorical variables, I don't know how to do the analyses. WeMix::mix() has a parameter weights, but I'm not sure if it treats them as sampling weights. Still, this function can't support multinomial family.
So, to resume: can you enlighten me on how to do a pre-post test analysis of categorical outcomes with 2 or more levels? Any tips about packages/functions in R and how to use/write them would be appreciated.
I give below some data sets with binomial and multinomial outcomes:
library(data.table)
set.seed(1)
data_long <- data.table(
id=rep(1:5,2),
time=c(rep("Pre",5),rep("Post",5)),
outcome1=sample(c("Yes","No"),10,replace=T),
outcome2=sample(c("Low","Medium","High"),10,replace=T),
outcome3=rnorm(10),
group=rep(sample(c("Man","Woman"),5,replace=T),2),
weight=rep(c(1,0.5,1.5,0.75,1.25),2)
)
data_wide <- dcast(data_long, id~time, value.var = c('outcome1','outcome2','outcome3','group','weight'))[, `:=` (weight_Post = NULL, group_Post = NULL)]
EDIT
As I said below in the comments, I've been using lmer and glmer with variables used to calculate the weights as predictors. It happens that glmer returns a lot of problems (convergence, high eigenvalues...), so I give another look at #ThomasLumley answer in this post and others (https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2012-June/315529.html | https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/89204/fitting-multilevel-models-to-complex-survey-data-in-r).
So, my question is now if a can use participants id as clusters in svydesign
library(survey)
w_data_long_cluster <- svydesign(ids = ~id, data = data_long, weights = data_long$weight)
summary(svyglm(factor(outcome1) ~ group*time, w_data_long_cluster, family="quasibinomial"))
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 1.875e+01 1.000e+00 18.746 0.0339 *
groupWoman -1.903e+01 1.536e+00 -12.394 0.0513 .
timePre 5.443e-09 5.443e-09 1.000 0.5000
groupWoman:timePre 2.877e-01 1.143e+00 0.252 0.8431
and still interpret groupWoman:timePre as differences in the average rate of change/improvement in the outcome over time between sex groups, as if I was using mixed models with participants as random effects.
Thank you once again!
A linear model with svyglm does not give the same parameter estimates as lme4::lmer. It does estimate the same parameters as lme4::lmer if the model is correctly specified, though.
Generalised linear models with svyglm or svy_vglm don't estimate the same parameters as lme4::glmer, as you note. However, they do estimate perfectly good regression parameters and if you aren't specifically interested in the variance components or in estimating the realised random effects (BLUPs) I would recommend just using svy_glm.
Another option if you have non-survey software for random effects versions of the models is to use that. If you scale the weights to sum to the sample size and if all the clustering in the design is modelled by random effects in the model, you will get at least a reasonable approximation to valid inference. That's what I've seen recommended for Bayesian survey modelling, for example.
Related
I am building a model using the mgcv package in r. The data has serial measures (data collected during scans 15 minutes apart in time, but discontinuously, e.g. there might be 5 consecutive scans on one day, and then none until the next day, etc.). The model has a binomial response, a random effect of day, a fixed effect, and three smooth effects. My understanding is that REML is the best fitting method for binomial models, but that this method cannot be specified using the gamm function for a binomial model. Thus, I am using the gam function, to allow for the use of REML fitting. When I fit the model, I am left with residual autocorrelation at a lag of 2 (i.e. at 30 minutes), assessed using ACF and PACF plots.
So, we wanted to include an autocorrelation structure in the model, but my understanding is that only the gamm function and not the gam function allows for the inclusion of such structures. I am wondering if there is anything I am missing and/or if there is a way to deal with autocorrelation with a binomial response variable in a GAMM built in mgcv.
My current model structure looks like:
gam(Response ~
s(Day, bs = "re") +
s(SmoothVar1, bs = "cs") +
s(SmoothVar2, bs = "cs") +
s(SmoothVar3, bs = "cs") +
as.factor(FixedVar),
family=binomial(link="logit"), method = "REML",
data = dat)
I tried thinning my data (using only every 3rd data point from consecutive scans), but found this overly restrictive to allow effects to be detected due to my relatively small sample size (only 42 data points left after thinning).
I also tried using the prior value of the binomial response variable as a factor in the model to account for the autocorrelation. This did appear to resolve the residual autocorrelation (based on the updated ACF/PACF plots), but it doesn't feel like the most elegant way to do so and I worry this added variable might be adjusting for more than just the autocorrelation (though it was not collinear with the other explanatory variables; VIF < 2).
I would use bam() for this. You don't need to have big data to fit a with bam(), you just loose some of the guarantees about convergence that you get with gam(). bam() will fit a GEE-like model with an AR(1) working correlation matrix, but you need to specify the AR parameter via rho. This only works for non-Gaussian families if you also set discrete = TRUE when fitting the model.
You could use gamm() with family = binomial() but this uses PQL to estimate the GLMM version of the GAMM and if your binomial counts are low this method isn't very good.
I'm a bit of a newbie with stats and R, so need a bit of direction to find a suitable post-hoc test for my glmer model.
The model has a binary dependent variable (absent/present) and the predictor variables are interactive terms between a continuous variable(eg temp) and a categorical variable (species, n=3). Only interactive terms, rather than the continuous factor in isolation, produce significant results when an anova is run on the model. Species by itself has a large effect because one species is much rarer than the others. I'm trying to tease apart how the presence of these species varies across pH and between species.
I've tried lsmeans test with Tukey, and Firth's Bias-Reduced Logistic Regression, emmeans. I ran the effects function on the interactive terms, so had a rough expectation of what a post hoc could show, but the results logistf (firth's) have produced I was not expecting. Emmeans and tukey both gave the same results and ignored the continuous variable I assume because it's not a factor.
When I run firth's regression it produces chi-squared and p values that are either infinity for chi values or the p values astronomically small, even though what I saw through effects suggested no significant difference. I can't tell with the interactive term if there truly is an effect of the environmental variable or if the significant effect is because of the difference in species. Based on what I have seen of the logistf function, I didn't think it would produce a chi-square score. Is this an issue in coding or is it because of my data?
If I wasn't clear enough about something please let me know and if anyone has any suggestions or advice, they would be massively appreciated. Thanks!
The model and test code I used are below:
###glmer model
Large<-glmer(Abs.Pres~ Species:Q.Depth+Species:Conductivity+Species:Temp+Species:pH+Species:DO.P+(1|QID),
nAGQ=0,
family=binomial,
data=Stacked_Pref)
anova(Large)
Output:Analysis of Variance Table
npar Sum Sq Mean Sq F value
Species:Q.Depth 3 234.904 78.301 78.3014
Species:Conductivity 3 32.991 10.997 10.9970
Species:Temp 3 39.001 13.000 13.0004
Species:pH 3 25.369 8.456 8.4562
Species:DO.P 3 34.930 11.643 11.6434
###Firths
Lp<-logistf(Abs.Pres~Species:pH, data=Stacked_Pref, contrasts.arg=list(pH="contr.treatment", Species="contr.sum"))
> Lp
logistf(formula = Abs.Pres ~ Species:pH, data = Stacked_Pref,
contrasts.arg = list(pH = "contr.treatment", Species = "contr.sum"))
Model fitted by Penalized ML
Confidence intervals and p-values by Profile Likelihood
coef se(coef) lower 0.95 upper 0.95 Chisq p
(Intercept) 1.9711411 0.57309880 0.8552342 3.1015114 12.09107 5.066380e-04
SpeciesGoby:pH -0.3393185 0.07146049 -0.4804047 -0.2003108 23.31954 1.371993e-06
SpeciesMosquito:pH -0.3001385 0.07127771 -0.4408186 -0.1614419 18.24981 1.937453e-05
SpeciesRFBE:pH -0.4771393 0.07232469 -0.6200179 -0.3365343 45.73750 1.352096e-11
Likelihood ratio test=267.0212 on 3 df, p=0, n=3945
I have a question similar to the one here: Testing the difference between marginal effects calculated across factors. I used the same code to generate average marginal effects for two groups. The difference is that I am running a logistic rather than linear regression model. My average marginal effects are on the probability scale, so emmeans will not provide the correct contrast. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to test whether there is a significant difference in the average marginal effects between group 1 and group 2?
Thank you so much,
Ilana
It is a bit unclear what the issue really is, but I'll try. I'm supposing your logistic regression model was fitted using, say, glm:
mod <- glm(cbind(heads, tails) ~ treat, data = mydata, family = binomial())
If you then do
emm <- emmeans(mod, "treat")
emm ### marginal means
pairs(emm) ### differences
Your results will be presented on the logit scale.
If you want them on the probability scale, you can do
summary(emm, type = "response")
summary(pairs(emm), type = "response")
However, the latter will back-transform the differences of logits, thereby producing odds ratios.
If you actually want differences of probabilities rather than ratios of odds, use regrid(), which will construct a new grid of values after back-transforming (and hence it will forget the log transformation):
pairs(regrid(emm))
It seems possible that two or more factors are present and you want contrasts of contrasts on the probability scale. In that case, extend this idea by calling regrid() on the table of EMMs to put everything on the probability scale, then follow the analogous procedure used in the linked article.
I'm interesting in performing a GAM regression on data from a national wide survey which presents sample weights. I read with interest this post.
I selected my vars of interest generating a DF:
nhanesAnalysis <- nhanesDemo %>%
select(fpl,
age,
gender,
persWeight,
psu,
strata)
Than, for what I understood, I generated a weighted DF with the following code:
library(survey)
nhanesDesign <- svydesign( id = ~psu,
strata = ~strata,
weights = ~persWeight,
nest = TRUE,
data = nhanesAnalysis)
Let's say that I would select only subjects with age≥30:
ageDesign <- subset(nhanesDesign, age >= 30)
Now, I would fit a GAM model (fpl ~ s(age) + gender) with mgcv package. Is it possible to do so with the weights argument or using svydesign object ageDesign ?
EDIT
I was wondering if is it correct to extrapolate computed weights from the an svyglm object and use it for weights argument in GAM.
This is more difficult than it looks. There are two issues
You want to get the right amount of smoothing
You want valid standard errors.
Just giving the sampling weights to mgcv::gam() won't do either of these: gam() treats the weights as frequency weights and so will think it has a lot more data than it actually has. You will get undersmoothing and underestimated standard errors because of the weights, and you will also likely get underestimated standard errors because of the cluster sampling.
The simple work-around is to use regression splines (splines package) instead. These aren't quite as good as the penalised splines used by mgcv, but the difference usually isn't a big deal, and they work straightforwardly with svyglm. You do need to choose how many degrees of freedom to assign.
library(splines)
svglm(fpl ~ ns(age,4) + gender, design = nhanesDesign)
I am trying to use R to run post-hoc comparisons following a significant interaction for a mixed-method Anova. I would like to do the post-hoc similar to SPSS [EMMEANS=TABLES(Group*time) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI)], using estimated marginal means but not assuming equality of variance.
Dependent variable = 'depvar'. I have 3 groups ('group') and 3 time points ('timept'), which are repeated measures over subjects ('id');
aov_car(depvar ~ group*timept + Error(id/(timept)), data=myData)
If I use pairwise.t.test I can compare groups separately for each time point, but the R uses observed means and I do not know how to force using the estimated marginal means of my model:
for (itimept in unique(myData$timept)){
idx=myData$timept==itimept
pairwise.t.test(myData$depvar[idx],myData$group[idx],p.adj="bonferroni")
}
If I use emmeans or lsmeans then R uses estimated marginal means, but assumes variances are the same (the SE in the results are all the same).
myfit=lme(depvar ~ group*timept, random = ~1|id/timept, data=myData)
emmeans(myfit, pairwise~group|timept, adjust="bonferroni")
How do I run post-hoc comparisons between groups for each time point, using estimated marginal means but not assuming equal variances, similar to SPSS?
Thanks!
Cristina
It isn’t emmeans that assumes equal variances. It is the model that you fitted and subsequently handed to emmeans for further analysis. Fit a different model using, I think, the weights argument, that specifies unequal variances.
I believe that this model will do the trick:
myfit = lme(depvar ~ group*timept,
random = ~1|id/timept,
weights = varFunc(~ group*timept),
data = myData)