I'm running a piecewise linear random coefficient model testing the influence of a covariate on the second piece. Thereby, I want to test whether the coefficient of the second piece under the influence of the covariate (piece2 + piece2:covariate) differs from the coefficient of the first piece (piece1), hence whether the growth rate differs.
I set up some exemplary data:
set.seed(100)
# set up dependent variable
temp <- rep(seq(0,23),50)
y <- c(rep(seq(0,23),50)+rnorm(24*50), ifelse(temp <= 11, temp + runif(1200), temp + rnorm(1200) + (temp/sqrt(temp))))
# set up ID variable, variables indicating pieces and the covariate
id <- sort(rep(seq(1,100),24))
piece1 <- rep(c(seq(0,11), rep(11,12)),100)
piece2 <- rep(c(rep(0,12), seq(1,12)),100)
covariate <- c(rep(0,24*50), rep(c(rep(0,12), rep(1,12)), 50))
# data frame
example.data <- data.frame(id, y, piece1, piece2, covariate)
# run piecewise linear random effects model and show results
library(lme4)
lmer.results <- lmer(y ~ piece1 + piece2*covariate + (1|id) , example.data)
summary(lmer.results)
I came across the linearHypothesis() command from the car package to test differences in coefficients. However, I could not find an example on how to use it when including interactions.
Can I even use linearHypothesis() to test this or am I aiming for the wrong test?
I appreciate your help.
Many thanks in advance!
Mac
Assuming your output looks like this
Estimate Std. Error t value
(Intercept) 0.26293 0.04997 5.3
piece1 0.99582 0.00677 147.2
piece2 0.98083 0.00716 137.0
covariate 2.98265 0.09042 33.0
piece2:covariate 0.15287 0.01286 11.9
if I understand correctly what you want, you are looking for the contrast:
piece1-(piece2+piece2:covariate)
or
c(0,1,-1,0,-1)
My preferred tool for this is function estimable in gmodels; you could also do it by hand or with one of the functions in Frank Harrel's packages.
library(gmodels)
estimable(lmer.results,c(0,1,-1,0,-1),conf.int=TRUE)
giving
Estimate Std. Error p value Lower.CI Upper.CI
(0 1 -1 0 -1) -0.138 0.0127 0 -0.182 -0.0928
Related
I am interested in estimating a mixed effect model with two random components (I am sorry for the somewhat unprecise notation. I am somewhat new to these kind of models). Finally, I also want also the standard errors of the variances of the random components. That is why I am somewhat boudn to using the package lme. The reason is that I found this description on how to calculate those standard errors and also interesting, the standard error for function of these variances link.
I believe I know how to use the package lmer. I am finally interested in model2. For the model1, both command yield the same estimates. But model2 with lme yields different results than model2 with lmer from the lme4 package. Could you help me to get around how to set up the random components for lme? This would be much appreciated. Thanks. Please find attached my MWE.
Best
Daniel
#### load all packages #####
loadpackage <- function(x){
for( i in x ){
# require returns TRUE invisibly if it was able to load package
if( ! require( i , character.only = TRUE ) ){
# If package was not able to be loaded then re-install
install.packages( i , dependencies = TRUE )
}
# Load package (after installing)
library( i , character.only = TRUE )
}
}
# Then try/install packages...
loadpackage( c("nlme", "msm", "lmeInfo", "lme4"))
alcohol1 <- read.table("https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/stat/r/examples/alda/data/alcohol1_pp.txt", header=T, sep=",")
attach(alcohol1)
id <- as.factor(id)
age <- as.factor(age)
model1.lmer <-lmer(alcuse ~ 1 + peer + (1|id))
summary(model1.lmer)
model2.lmer <-lmer(alcuse ~ 1 + peer + (1|id) + (1|age))
summary(model2.lmer)
model1.lme <- lme(alcuse ~ 1+ peer, data = alcohol1, random = ~ 1 |id, method ="REML")
summary(model1.lme)
model2.lme <- lme(alcuse ~ 1+ peer, data = alcohol1, random = ~ 1 |id + 1|age, method ="REML")
Edit (15/09/2021):
Estimating the model as follows end then returning the estimates via nlme::VarCorr gives me different results. While the estimates seem to be in the ball park, it is as they are switched across components.
model2a.lme <- lme(alcuse ~ 1+ peer, data = alcohol1, random = ~ 1 |id/age, method ="REML")
summary(model2a.lme)
nlme::VarCorr(model2a.lme)
Variance StdDev
id = pdLogChol(1)
(Intercept) 0.38390274 0.6195989
age = pdLogChol(1)
(Intercept) 0.47892113 0.6920413
Residual 0.08282585 0.2877948
EDIT (16/09/2021):
Since Bob pushed me to think more about my model, I want to give some additional information. Please know that the data I use in the MWE do not match my true data. I just used it for illustrative purposes since I can not upload myy true data. I have a household panel with income, demographic informations and parent indicators.
I am interested in intergenerational mobility. Sibling correlations of permanent income are one industry standard. At the very least, contemporanous observations are very bad proxies of permanent income. Due to transitory shocks, i.e., classical measurement error, those estimates are most certainly attenuated. For this reason, we exploit the longitudinal dimension of our data.
For sibling correlations, this amounts to hypothesising that the income process is as follows:
$$Y_{ijt} = \beta X_{ijt} + \epsilon_{ijt}.$$
With Y being income from individual i from family j in year t. X comprises age and survey year indicators to account for life-cycle effects and macroeconmic conditions in survey years. Epsilon is a compund term comprising a random individual and family component as well as a transitory component (measurement error and short lived shocks). It looks as follows:
$$\epsilon_{ijt} = \alpha_i + \gamma_j + \eta_{ijt}.$$
The variance of income is then:
$$\sigma^2_\epsilon = \sigma^2_\alpha + \sigma^2\gamma + \sigma^2\eta.$$
The quantitiy we are interested in is
$$\rho = \frac(\sigma^2\gamma}{\sigma^2_\alpha + \sigma^2\gamma},$$
which reflects the share of shared family (and other characteristics) among siblings of the variation in permanent income.
B.t.w.: The struggle is simply because I want to have a standard errors for all estimates and for \rho.
This is an example of crossed vs nested random effects. (Note that the example you refer to is fitting a different kind of model, a random-slopes model rather than a model with two different grouping variables ...)
If you try with(alcohol1, table(age,id)) you can see that every id is associated with every possible age (14, 15, 16). Or subset(alcohol1, id==1) for example:
id age coa male age_14 alcuse peer cpeer ccoa
1 1 14 1 0 0 1.732051 1.264911 0.2469111 0.549
2 1 15 1 0 1 2.000000 1.264911 0.2469111 0.549
3 1 16 1 0 2 2.000000 1.264911 0.2469111 0.549
There are three possible models you could fit for a model with random effects of age(indexed by i) and id (indexed by j)
crossed ((1|age) + (1|id)): Y_{ij} = beta0 + beta1*peer + eps1_i + eps2_j +epsr_{ij}; alcohol use varies among individuals and, independently, across ages (this model won't work very well because there are only three distinct ages in the data set, more levels are usually needed)
id nested within age ((1|age/id) = (1|age) + (1|age:id)): Y_{ij} = beta0 + beta1*peer + eps1_i + eps2_{ij} + epsr_{ij}; alcohol use varies across ages, and varies across individuals within ages (see note above about number of levels).
age nested within id ((1|id/age) = (1|id) + (1|age:id)): Y_{ij} = beta0 + beta1*peer + eps1_j + eps2_{ij} + epsr_{ij}; alcohol use varies across individuals, and varies across ages within individuals
Here eps1_i, eps2_{ij}, and epsr_{ij} are normal deviates; epsr is the residual error term.
The latter two models actually don't make sense in this case; because there is only one observation per age/id combination, the nested variance (eps2) is completely confounded with the residual variance (epsr). lme doesn't notice this; if you try to fit one of the nested models in lmer it will give an error that
number of levels of each grouping factor must be < number of observations (problems: id:age)
(Although if you try to compute confidence intervals based on model1.lme you'll get an error "cannot get confidence intervals on var-cov components: Non-positive definite approximate variance-covariance", which is a hint that something is wrong.)
You could restate this problem as saying that the residual variation, and the variation among ages within individuals, are jointly unidentifiable (can't be separated from each other, statistically).
The updated answer here shows how to get the standard errors of the variance components from an lmer model, so you shouldn't be stuck with lme (but you should think carefully about which model you're really trying to fit ...)
The GLMM FAQ might also be useful.
More generally, the standard error of
rho = (V_gamma)/(V_alpha + V_gamma)
will be hard to compute accurately, because this is a nonlinear function of the model parameters. You can apply the delta method, but the most reliable approach would be to use parametric bootstrapping: if you have a fitted model m, then something like this should work:
var_ratio <- function(m) {
v <- as.data.frame(sapply(VarCorr(m), as.numeric))
return(v$family/(v$family + v$id))
}
confint(m, method="boot", FUN =var_ratio)
You should specify random effects in lme by using / not +
By lmer
model2.lmer <-lmer(alcuse ~ 1 + peer + (1|id) + (1|age), data = alcohol1)
summary(model2.lmer)
Linear mixed model fit by REML ['lmerMod']
Formula: alcuse ~ 1 + peer + (1 | id) + (1 | age)
Data: alcohol1
REML criterion at convergence: 651.3
Scaled residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-2.0228 -0.5310 -0.1329 0.5854 3.1545
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
id (Intercept) 0.08078 0.2842
age (Intercept) 0.30313 0.5506
Residual 0.56175 0.7495
Number of obs: 246, groups: id, 82; age, 82
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error t value
(Intercept) 0.3039 0.1438 2.113
peer 0.6074 0.1151 5.276
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr)
peer -0.814
By lme
model2.lme <- lme(alcuse ~ 1+ peer, data = alcohol1, random = ~ 1 |id/age, method ="REML")
summary(model2.lme)
Linear mixed-effects model fit by REML
Data: alcohol1
AIC BIC logLik
661.3109 678.7967 -325.6554
Random effects:
Formula: ~1 | id
(Intercept)
StdDev: 0.4381206
Formula: ~1 | age %in% id
(Intercept) Residual
StdDev: 0.4381203 0.7494988
Fixed effects: alcuse ~ 1 + peer
Value Std.Error DF t-value p-value
(Intercept) 0.3038946 0.1438333 164 2.112825 0.0361
peer 0.6073948 0.1151228 80 5.276060 0.0000
Correlation:
(Intr)
peer -0.814
Standardized Within-Group Residuals:
Min Q1 Med Q3 Max
-2.0227793 -0.5309669 -0.1329302 0.5853768 3.1544873
Number of Observations: 246
Number of Groups:
id age %in% id
82 82
Okay, finally. Just to sketch my confidential data: I have a panel of individuals. The data includes siblings, identified via mnr. income is earnings, wavey survey year, age age factors. female a factor for gender, pid is the factor identifying the individual.
m1 <- lmer(income ~ age + wavey + female + (1|pid) + (1 | mnr),
data = panel)
vv <- vcov(m1, full = TRUE)
covvar <- vv[58:60, 58:60]
covvar
3 x 3 Matrix of class "dgeMatrix"
cov_pid.(Intercept) cov_mnr.(Intercept) residual
[1,] 2.6528679 -1.4624588 -0.4077576
[2,] -1.4624588 3.1015001 -0.0597926
[3,] -0.4077576 -0.0597926 1.1634680
mean <- as.data.frame(VarCorr(m1))$vcov
mean
[1] 17.92341 16.86084 56.77185
deltamethod(~ x2/(x1+x2), mean, covvar, ses =TRUE)
[1] 0.04242089
The last scalar should be what I interprete as the shared background of the siblings of permanent income.
Thanks to #Ben Bolker who pointed me into this direction.
How can I use the rms package in R to execute a negative binomial regression? (I originally posted this question on Statistics SE, but it was closed apparently because it is a better fit here.)
With the MASS package, I use the glm.nb function, but I am trying to switch to the rms package because I sometimes get weird errors when bootstrapping with glm.nb and some other functions. But I cannot figure out how to do a negative binomial regression with the rms package.
Here is sample code of what I would like to do (copied from the rms::Glm function documentation):
library(rms)
## Dobson (1990) Page 93: Randomized Controlled Trial :
counts <- c(18,17,15,20,10,20,25,13,12)
outcome <- gl(3,1,9)
treatment <- gl(3,3)
f <- Glm(counts ~ outcome + treatment, family=poisson())
f
anova(f)
summary(f, outcome=c('1','2','3'), treatment=c('1','2','3'))
So, instead of using family=poisson(), I would like to use something like family=negative.binomial(), but I cannot figure out how to do this.
In the documentation for family {stats}, I found this note in the "See also" section:
For binomial coefficients, choose; the binomial and negative binomial distributions, Binomial, and NegBinomial.
But even after clicking the link for ?NegBinomial, I cannot make any sense of this.
I would appreciate any help on how to use the rms package in R to execute a negative binomial regression.
opinion up front You might be better off posting (as a separate question) a reproducible example of the "weird errors" from your bootstrap attempts and seeing whether people have ideas for resolving them. It's fairly common for NB fitting procedures to throw warnings or errors when data are equi- or underdispersed, as the estimates of the dispersion parameter become infinite in this case ...
#coffeinjunky is correct that using family = negative.binomial(theta=VALUE) will work (where VALUE is a numeric constant, e.g. theta=1 for the geometric distribution [a special case of the NB]). However: you won't be able (without significantly more work) be able to fit the general NB model, i.e. the model where the dispersion parameter (theta) is estimated as part of the fitting procedure. That's what MASS::glm.nb does, and AFAICS there is no analogue in the rms package.
There are a few other packages/functions in addition to MASS::glm.nb that fit the negative binomial model, including (at least) bbmle and glmmTMB — there may be others such as gamlss.
## Dobson (1990) Page 93: Randomized Controlled Trial :
dd < data.frame(
counts = c(18,17,15,20,10,20,25,13,12)
outcome = gl(3,1,9),
treatment = gl(3,3))
MASS::glm.nb
library(MASS)
m1 <- glm.nb(counts ~ outcome + treatment, data = dd)
## "iteration limit reached" warning
glmmTMB
library(glmmTMB)
m2 <- glmmTMB(counts ~ outcome + treatment, family = nbinom2, data = dd)
## "false convergence" warning
bbmle
library(bbmle)
m3 <- mle2(counts ~ dnbinom(mu = exp(logmu), size = exp(logtheta)),
parameters = list(logmu ~outcome + treatment),
data = dd,
start = list(logmu = 0, logtheta = 0)
)
signif(cbind(MASS=coef(m1), glmmTMB=fixef(m2)$cond, bbmle=coef(m3)[1:5]), 5)
MASS glmmTMB bbmle
(Intercept) 3.0445e+00 3.04540000 3.0445e+00
outcome2 -4.5426e-01 -0.45397000 -4.5417e-01
outcome3 -2.9299e-01 -0.29253000 -2.9293e-01
treatment2 -1.1114e-06 0.00032174 8.1631e-06
treatment3 -1.9209e-06 0.00032823 6.5817e-06
These all agree fairly well (at least for the intercept/outcome parameters). This example is fairly difficult for a NB model (5 parameters + dispersion for 9 observations, data are Poisson rather than NB).
Based on this, the following seems to work:
library(rms)
library(MASS)
counts <- c(18,17,15,20,10,20,25,13,12)
outcome <- gl(3,1,9)
treatment <- gl(3,3)
Glm(counts ~ outcome + treatment, family = negative.binomial(theta = 1))
General Linear Model
rms::Glm(formula = counts ~ outcome + treatment, family = negative.binomial(theta = 1))
Model Likelihood
Ratio Test
Obs 9 LR chi2 0.31
Residual d.f.4 d.f. 4
g 0.2383063 Pr(> chi2) 0.9892
Coef S.E. Wald Z Pr(>|Z|)
Intercept 3.0756 0.2121 14.50 <0.0001
outcome=2 -0.4598 0.2333 -1.97 0.0487
outcome=3 -0.2962 0.2327 -1.27 0.2030
treatment=2 -0.0347 0.2333 -0.15 0.8819
treatment=3 -0.0503 0.2333 -0.22 0.8293
I'm trying to simulate data for a model expressed with the following formula:
lme4::lmer(y ~ a + b + (1|subject), data) but with a set of given parameters:
a <- rnorm() measured at subject level (e.g nSubjects = 50)
y is measured at the observation level (e.g. nObs = 7 for each subject
b <- rnorm() measured at observation level and correlated at a given r with a
variance ratio of the random effects in lmer(y ~ 1 + (1 | subject), data) is fixed at for example 50/50 or 10/90 (and so on)
some random noise is present (so that a full model does not explain all the variance)
effect size of the fixed effects can be set at a predefined level (e.g. dCohen=0.5)
I played with various packages like: powerlmm, simstudy or simr but still fail to find a working solution that will accommodate the amount of parameters I'd like to define beforehand.
Also for my learning purposes I'd prefer a base R method than a package solution.
The closest example I found is a blog post by Ben Ogorek "Hierarchical linear models and lmer" which looks great but I can't figure out how to control for parameters listed above.
Any help would be appreciated.
Also if there a package that I don't know of, that can do these type of simulations please let me know.
Some questions about the model definition:
How do we specify a correlation between two random vectors that are different lengths? I'm not sure: I'll sample 350 values (nObs*nSubject) and throw away most of the values for the subject-level effect.
Not sure about "variance ratio" here. By definition, the theta parameters (standard deviations of the random effects) are scaled by the residual standard deviation (sigma), e.g. if sigma=2, theta=2, then the residual std dev is 2 and the among-subject std dev is 4
Define parameter/experimental design values:
nSubjects <- 50
nObs <- 7
## means of a,b are 0 without loss of generality
sdvec <- c(a=1,b=1)
rho <- 0.5 ## correlation
betavec <- c(intercept=0,a=1,b=2)
beta_sc <- betavec[-1]*sdvec ## scale parameter values by sd
theta <- 0.4 ## = 20/50
sigma <- 1
Set up data frame:
library(lme4)
set.seed(101)
## generate a, b variables
mm <- MASS::mvrnorm(nSubjects*nObs,
mu=c(0,0),
Sigma=matrix(c(1,rho,rho,1),2,2)*outer(sdvec,sdvec))
subj <- factor(rep(seq(nSubjects),each=nObs)) ## or ?gl
## sample every nObs'th value of a
avec <- mm[seq(1,nObs*nSubjects,by=nObs),"a"]
avec <- rep(avec,each=nObs) ## replicate
bvec <- mm[,"b"]
dd <- data.frame(a=avec,b=bvec,Subject=subj)
Simulate:
dd$y <- simulate(~a+b+(1|Subject),
newdata=dd,
newparams=list(beta=beta_sc,theta=theta,sigma=1),
family=gaussian)[[1]]
I try to analyze some simulated longitudinal data in R using a mixed-effects model (lme4 package).
Simulated data: 25 subjects have to perform 2 tasks at 5 consecutive time points.
#Simulate longitudinal data
N <- 25
t <- 5
x <- rep(1:t,N)
#task1
beta1 <- 4
e1 <- rnorm(N*t, mean = 0, sd = 1.5)
y1 <- 1 + x * beta1 + e1
#task2
beta2 <- 1.5
e2 <- rnorm(N*t, mean = 0, sd = 1)
y2 <- 1 + x * beta2 + e2
data1 <- data.frame(id=factor(rep(1:N, each=t)), day = x, y = y1, task=rep(c("task1"),length(y1)))
data2 <- data.frame(id=factor(rep(1:N, each=t)), day = x, y = y2, task=rep(c("task2"),length(y2)))
data <- rbind(data1, data2)
Question1: How to analyze how a subject learns each task?
library(lme4)
m1 <- lmer(y ~ day + (1 | id), data=data1)
summary(m1)
...
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 1.2757 0.3561 123.0000 3.582 0.000489 ***
day 3.9299 0.1074 123.0000 36.603 < 2e-16 ***
With ranef(m1) I get the random intercept for each subject, which I think reflects the baseline value for each subject at day = 1. But I don't understand how I can tell how an individual learns a task, or whether subjects differ in the way how they learn the task.
Question2: How can I analyze whether the way subjects learn differ between task1 and task2.
I expanded on your example to answer your questions briefly, but I can recommend reading chapter 15 of Snijders & Bosker (2012) or the book by Singer & Willet (2003) for a better explanation. Day is treated as a continuous variable in your model, seeing as you have panel data (i.e. everyone is measured at the same day) and day has no meaning apart from indicating the different measurement occasions, it may be better to treat day as a factor (i.e. use dummy variables).
However, for now I will continue with your example
Your first model (I think you want data instread of data1) gives a fixed linear slope (i.e. average slope, no difference in the tasks, no difference between individuals). The fixed intercept is the performance when day is 0, which has no meaning so you may want to consider centering the effect of day for a better interpretation (or indeed use dummies). The random effect gives the individual deviance from this intercept which has an estimated variance of 0.00 in your example so individuals hardly differ from each other in their starting position.
m1 <- lmer(y ~ day + (1 | id), data=data)
summary(m1)
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
id (Intercept) 0.00 0.000
Residual 18.54 4.306
Number of obs: 250, groups: id, 25
We can extend this model by adding an interaction with task. Meaning that the fixed slope is different for task1 and task2 which answers question 2 I believe (you can also use update() to update your model)
m2 <- lmer(y ~ day*task + (1|id), data = data)
summary(m2)
The effect of day in this model is the fixed slope of your reference category (task1) and the interaction is the difference between the slope of task1 and task2. The fixed effect of task is the difference in intercept.
model fit can be assessed with a deviance test, read Snijders & Boskers (2012) for an explanation of ML and REML estimates.
anova(m1,m2)
To add a random effect for the growth of individuals we can update the model again, which answers question 1
m3 <- lmer(y ~ day*task + (day|id), data = data)
summary(m3)
ranef(m3)
The random effects indicate the individual deviations in slope and intercept. A summary of the distribution of you random effects is included in the model summary (same as for m1).
Finally I think you could add a random effect on the day-task interaction to assess whether individuals differ in their performance growth on task1 and task2. But this depends very much on your data and the performance of the previous models.
m4 <- lmer(y ~ day*task + (day*task|id), data = data)
summary(m4)
ranef(m4)
Hope this helps. The books I recommended certainly should. Both provide excellent examples and explanation of theory (no R examples unfortunately). If you decide on a fixed occasion model (effect of day expressed by dummies) the nlme package provides excellent options to control the covariance structure of random effects. Good documentation of the package is provided by Pinheiro & Bates (2000).
the study design of the data I have to analyse is simple. There is 1 control group (CTRL) and
2 different treatment groups (TREAT_1 and TREAT_2). The data also includes 2 covariates COV1 and COV2. I have been asked to check if there is a linear or quadratic treatment effect in the data.
I created a dummy data set to explain my situation:
df1 <- data.frame(
Observation = c(rep("CTRL",15), rep("TREAT_1",13), rep("TREAT_2", 12)),
COV1 = c(rep("A1", 30), rep("A2", 10)),
COV2 = c(rep("B1", 5), rep("B2", 5), rep("B3", 10), rep("B1", 5), rep("B2", 5), rep("B3", 10)),
Variable = c(3944133, 3632461, 3351754, 3655975, 3487722, 3644783, 3491138, 3328894,
3654507, 3465627, 3511446, 3507249, 3373233, 3432867, 3640888,
3677593, 3585096, 3441775, 3608574, 3669114, 4000812, 3503511, 3423968,
3647391, 3584604, 3548256, 3505411, 3665138,
4049955, 3425512, 3834061, 3639699, 3522208, 3711928, 3576597, 3786781,
3591042, 3995802, 3493091, 3674475)
)
plot(Variable ~ Observation, data = df1)
As you can see from the plot there is a linear relationship between the control and the treatment groups. To check if this linear effect is statistical significant I change the contrasts using the contr.poly() function and fit a linear model like this:
contrasts(df1$Observation) <- contr.poly(levels(df1$Observation))
lm1 <- lm(log(Variable) ~ Observation, data = df1)
summary.lm(lm1)
From the summary we can see that the linear effect is statistically significant:
Observation.L 0.029141 0.012377 2.355 0.024 *
Observation.Q 0.002233 0.012482 0.179 0.859
However, this first model does not include any of the two covariates. Including them results in a non-significant p-value for the linear relationship:
lm2 <- lm(log(Variable) ~ Observation + COV1 + COV2, data = df1)
summary.lm(lm2)
Observation.L 0.04116 0.02624 1.568 0.126
Observation.Q 0.01003 0.01894 0.530 0.600
COV1A2 -0.01203 0.04202 -0.286 0.776
COV2B2 -0.02071 0.02202 -0.941 0.354
COV2B3 -0.02083 0.02066 -1.008 0.320
So far so good. However, I have been told to conduct a Type II Anova rather than Type I. To conduct a Type II Anova I used the Anova() function from the car package.
Anova(lm2, type="II")
Anova Table (Type II tests)
Response: log(Variable)
Sum Sq Df F value Pr(>F)
Observation 0.006253 2 1.4651 0.2453
COV1 0.000175 1 0.0820 0.7763
COV2 0.002768 2 0.6485 0.5292
Residuals 0.072555 34
The problem here with using Type II is that you do not get a p-value for the linear and quadratic effect. So I do not know if the effect is statistically linear and or quadratic.
I found out that the following code produces the same p-value for Observation as the Anova() function. But the result also does not include any p-values for the linear or quadratic effect:
lm2 <- lm(log(Variable) ~ Observation + COV1 + COV2, data = df1)
lm3 <- lm(log(Variable) ~ COV1 + COV2, data = df1)
anova(lm2, lm3)
Does anybody know how to conduct a Type II anova and the contrasts function to obtain the p-values for the linear and quadratic effects?
Help would be very much appreciated.
Best
Peter
I found one partial workaround for this, but it may require further correction. The documentation for the function drop1() from the stats package indicates that this function produces Type II sums of squares (although this page: http://www.statmethods.net/stats/anova.html ) declares that drop1() produces Type III sums of squares, and I didn't spend too much time poring over this (http://afni.nimh.nih.gov/sscc/gangc/SS.html) to cross-check sums of squares calculations. You could use it to calculate everything manually, but I suspect you're asking this question because it would be nice if someone had already worked through it.
Anyway, I added a second vector to the dummy data called Observation2, and set it up with just the linear contrasts (you can only specify one set of contrasts for a given vector at a given time):
df1[,"Observation2"]<-df1$Observation
contrasts(df1$Observation2, how.many=1)<-contr.poly
Then created a third linear model:
lm3<-lm(log(Variable)~Observation2+COV1+COV2, data=df1)
And conducted F tests with drop1 to compare F statistics from Type II ANOVAs between the two models:
lm2, which contains both the linear and quadratic terms:
drop1(lm2, test="F")
lm3, which contains just the linear contrasts:
drop1(lm3, test="F")
This doesn't include a direct comparison of the models against each other, although the F statistic is higher (and p value accordingly lower) for the linear model, which would lead one to rely upon it instead of the quadratic model.