Re: [R] GLM and normality of predictors

From: Ben Bolker <>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:22:33 +0000

Sacha Viquerat <tweedie-d <at>> writes:

> Am 15.04.2011 20:14, schrieb Christian Hennig:
> > Normality of the predictors doesn't belong to the assumptions of the
> > GLM, so you don't have to check this.
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Simone Santoro wrote:
> >
> >> I want to estimate the possible effects of some predictors on my
> >> response variable that is n? of males and n? of females
> >> (cbind(males,females)), so, it would be:
> >>
> >> fullmodel<-glm(cbind(males,females)~pred1+pred2+pred3, binomial)
> >>
> if you count no of males and females, shouldn't you choose the poisson
> family? maybe whoever you told you to check for normality referred to
> that, since count data are not normally distributed (neither are their
> errors)! maybe thats all he/she wants!

I think the original model using the binomial distribution for the response seems entirely appropriate.

  I agree with the comment about tiny data sets: the usual rule of thumb is that (# parameters) should be <(effective N)/10 -- so in practice estimating anything more than a single binary or continuous predictor (both of which require a single parameter to estimate) would be pushing it.

  (Sad but true.)

  Ben Bolker mailing list PLEASE do read the posting guide and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Received on Fri 15 Apr 2011 - 22:30:24 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 Fri 15 Apr 2011 - 22:40:30 GMT.

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

list of date sections of archive