Timeline for Animal density and locomotion: analysis given missing data
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2017 at 6:51 | answer | added | Simon | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 24, 2017 at 4:50 | comment | added | Shara | Yes, all those things were kept similar. Also there was a control along with each treatment in a nearby paddock. | |
| Apr 24, 2017 at 4:49 | comment | added | Shara | Hi, thanks for your help, the missingness is due to some collars tending to work better than others, e.g. better soldering, better fit so that antenna didn't move round underneath the animal's neck accidentally etc. So it is related to collar quality rather than something external which might affect the distance walked. Some collars would work for an hour or so, stop then start again, these have already been deleted as I only use collars with >90% data. The ones remaining are those that tended to work for a day then stop for an hour etc. (perhaps antenna was obscured or something). | |
| S Apr 24, 2017 at 4:16 | history | suggested | Simon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed superfulous text and revised title to reflect the question
|
| Apr 24, 2017 at 3:26 | comment | added | Simon | What is the extent of missingness? Is it random? Also, do you control for external factors in your experiment? ie. pasture quality, temperature, precipitation, status of the animal (pregnant, age etc.). | |
| Apr 24, 2017 at 3:23 | comment | added | Simon | At a brief look at your question, you could consider a mixed effects model. The advantages here are 1) that only the time points/cases of missing data will be dropped, and 2) you take your experimental design into account. | |
| Apr 24, 2017 at 2:48 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 24, 2017 at 4:16 | |||||
| Apr 24, 2017 at 2:28 | history | edited | Shara | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 111 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2017 at 3:15 | history | asked | Shara | CC BY-SA 3.0 |