From: Daniel Ezra Johnson <johnson4_at_babel.ling.upenn.edu>

Date: Sun 31 Dec 2006 - 18:50:40 GMT

a22 <- c(1,0,0,1,0,1,1)

a23 <- c(1,0,1,1,0,1,0)

aa <-

rbind(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6,a7,a8,a9,a10,a11,a12,a13,a14,a15,a16,a17,a18,a19,a20,a21,a22,a23)

R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch 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. Received on Mon Jan 01 05:54:45 2007

Date: Sun 31 Dec 2006 - 18:50:40 GMT

I've found a way to make this problem, if it's not a bug, more clear.
I've taken my original data set A and simply doubled it with
AA<-rbind(A,A).

Doing so, instead of this:

Random effects: # A

Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.

Subject (Intercept) 1.63e+00 1.28e+00

Item (Intercept) 5.00e-10 2.24e-05

number of obs: 161, groups: Subject, 23; Item, 7

I get this:

Random effects: # AA

Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.

Subject (Intercept) 3.728 1.931

Item (Intercept) 0.319 0.565

number of obs: 322, groups: Subject, 23; Item, 7

I think I understand why the Subject effect increases. On a per-Response basis, there is more variation between Subjects. However, the probability (hence log odds, etc.) of the Response seems to be constant, so I am not sure. In any case, the ranef variance increases by a factor of 2.3, going from A to AA:

Response 1:0 Dataset A Dataset AA Subject 1 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 2 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 3 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 4 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 5 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 6 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 7 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 8 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 9 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 10 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 11 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 12 0 : 7 0 : 14 Subject 13 1 : 6 2 : 12 Subject 14 1 : 6 2 : 12 Subject 15 1 : 6 2 : 12 Subject 16 1 : 6 2 : 12 Subject 17 1 : 6 2 : 12 Subject 18 1 : 6 2 : 12 Subject 19 1 : 6 2 : 12 Subject 20 2 : 5 4 : 10 Subject 21 3 : 4 6 : 8 Subject 22 4 : 3 8 : 6 Subject 23 4 : 3 8 : 6 Ranef s^2 1.630 3.728

Comparing the Items, though, we have:

Response 1:0 Dataset A Dataset AA Item 1 2 : 21 4 : 42 Item 2 2 : 21 4 : 42 Item 3 2 : 21 4 : 42 Item 4 4 : 19 8 : 38 Item 5 1 : 22 2 : 44 Item 6 5 : 18 10 : 36 Item 7 4 : 19 8 : 38 Ranef s^2: 5.00xe-10 0.319

Looking at this completely naively, I don't understand why whatever statistical difference doubling the data for each Item makes, shouldn't be similar to what happened above, for Subject. Instead, we have an estimate of zero for the smaller data set.

I realize that I don't understand the actual mathematics by which the BLUPs (and thus the variances) are calculated, but something seems wrong here. Obviously between A and AA nothing changes as far as the interaction of Subject and Item in particular combinations.

How should i best understand this behavior of lmer, and what is my best advice for obtaining reliable random effect size estimates from data like this? Are the estimates at least reliable when they are NOT zero?

Thanks,

Daniel

P.S. I'll point out again that the by multiplying the "zero" ranef estimate for A by an enormous constant (see blow), it is almost identical to thet for AA. Obviously these coefficients derive from the marginal proportions in the data. And I understand that with small N's, the random effect may not be signifiicant. But that shouldn't mean that the estimate is zero, right (compare fixed effect coefficients, which are often non-zero, yet not significant...)

a1 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a2 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a3 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a4 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a5 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a6 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a7 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a8 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a9 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a10 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a11 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a12 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0) a13 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,1) a14 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,0,1) a15 <- c(0,0,0,0,0,1,0) a16 <- c(0,0,0,0,1,0,0) a17 <- c(0,0,0,1,0,0,0) a18 <- c(0,0,1,0,0,0,0) a19 <- c(0,1,0,0,0,0,0) a20 <- c(0,1,0,0,0,1,0) a21 <- c(0,0,0,1,0,1,1)

a22 <- c(1,0,0,1,0,1,1)

a23 <- c(1,0,1,1,0,1,0)

aa <-

rbind(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6,a7,a8,a9,a10,a11,a12,a13,a14,a15,a16,a17,a18,a19,a20,a21,a22,a23)

a <- array(0, c(161,3), list(NULL, c("Subject","Item","Response")))

for (s in c(1:23)) for (i in c(1:7)) a[7*(s-1)+i,] <- c(s,i,aa[s,i])

A <- data.frame(a)

AA <- rbind(A,A)

A.fit <- lmer(Response~(1|Subject)+(1|Item),A,binomial) AA.fit <- lmer(Response~(1|Subject)+(1|Item),B,binomial)

A.fit

AA.fit

ranef(A.fit)$Item

(ranef(A.fit)$Item)*578500000

ranef(AA.fit)$Item

R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch 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. Received on Mon Jan 01 05:54:45 2007

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by
the discipline of
statistics at the
University of Newcastle,
Australia.

Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.8, at Sun 31 Dec 2006 - 19:31:26 GMT.

*
Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help.
Please read the posting
guide before posting to the list.
*