Re: [Rd] Standardized Pearson residuals

From: Brett Presnell <>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:40:29 -0400

Thanks Peter. I have just a couple of minor comments, and another possible feature request, although it's one that I don't think will be implemented.

peter dalgaard <> writes:

> On Mar 14, 2011, at 22:25 , Brett Presnell wrote:
>> Is there any reason that rstandard.glm doesn't have a "pearson" option?
>> And if not, can it be added?
> Probably... I have been wondering about that too. I'm even puzzled why
> it isn't the default. Deviance residuals don't have quite the
> properties that one might expect, e.g. in this situation, the absolute
> residuals sum pairwise to zero, so you'd expect that the standardized
> residuals be identical in absolute value
>> y <- 1:4
>> r <- c(0,0,1,1)
>> c <- c(0,1,0,1)
>> rstandard(glm(y~r+c,poisson))
> 1 2 3 4
> -0.2901432 0.2767287 0.2784603 -0.2839995
> in comparison,
>> i <- influence(glm(y~r+c,poisson))
>> i$pear.res/sqrt(1-i$hat)
> 1 2 3 4
> -0.2817181 0.2817181 0.2817181 -0.2817181
> The only thing is that I'm always wary of tampering with this stuff,
> for fear of finding out the hard way why thing are the way they
> are....

I'm sure that's wise, but it would be nice to get it in as an option, even if it's not the default

>> Background: I'm currently teaching an undergrad/grad-service course from
>> Agresti's "Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (2nd edn)" and
>> deviance residuals are not used in the text. For now I'll just provide
>> the students with a simple function to use, but I prefer to use R's
>> native capabilities whenever possible.
> Incidentally, chisq.test will have a stdres component in 2.13.0 for
> much the same reason.

Thank you. That's one more thing I won't have to provide code for anymore. Coincidentally, Agresti mentioned this to me a week or two ago as something that he felt was missing, so that's at least two people who will be happy to see this added.

It would also be nice for teaching purposes if glm or summary.glm had a "pearsonchisq" component and a corresponding extractor function, but I can imagine that there might be arguments against it that haven't occured to me. Plus, I doubt that anyone wants to touch glm unless it's to repair a bug. If I'm wrong about all that though, ...

BTW, as I go along I'm trying to collect a lot of the datasets from the examples and exercises in the text into an R package ("icda"). It's far from complete and what is there needed tidying up, but I hope to eventually to round it into shape and put it on CRAN, assuming that Agresti approves and that there are no copyright issues.

>> I think something along the following lines should do it:
>> rstandard.glm <-
>> function(model,
>> infl=influence(model, do.coef=FALSE),
>> type=c("deviance", "pearson"), ...)
>> {
>> type <- match.arg(type)
>> res <- switch(type, pearson = infl$pear.res, infl$dev.res)
>> res <- res/sqrt(1-infl$hat)
>> res[is.infinite(res)] <- NaN
>> res
>> } mailing list Received on Tue 15 Mar 2011 - 03:44:38 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Tue 15 Mar 2011 - 12:50:31 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive