Timeline for Big difference between a t-test and a F-test in a mixed model (anova vs summary in lmerTest)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jun 21, 2023 at 20:11 | history | suggested | jay.sf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Headers aligned to numbers
|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 6:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 21, 2023 at 20:11 | |||||
| Jun 29, 2017 at 7:49 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 30, 2017 at 11:16 | |||||
| May 17, 2017 at 8:39 | history | edited | amoeba | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 92 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2017 at 15:59 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 17, 2017 at 12:13 | |||||
| May 16, 2017 at 15:44 | comment | added | Henrik | Possible duplicate of Conflicting results of summary() and anova() for a mixed model with interactions in lmer+lmerTest | |
| S May 16, 2017 at 15:30 | history | bounty ended | Ishisht | ||
| S May 16, 2017 at 15:30 | history | notice removed | Ishisht | ||
| May 16, 2017 at 15:29 | vote | accept | Ishisht | ||
| May 16, 2017 at 15:29 | history | edited | Ishisht | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5894 characters in body
|
| May 15, 2017 at 15:04 | answer | added | Henrik | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 15, 2017 at 14:11 | history | edited | amoeba | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body; edited title
|
| May 15, 2017 at 11:01 | comment | added | Aurelie | Look at the degrees of freedom used in your summaries compared to your anova, this is weird. Once you checked the solution provided by amoeba, make sure the degree of freedom are comparable (normally your summary should use only one more since laterality has 3 levels...). | |
| May 15, 2017 at 9:23 | comment | added | amoeba | In particular, see stats.stackexchange.com/a/265029/28666. | |
| May 15, 2017 at 9:18 | comment | added | amoeba |
+1. Take a look at some of the top results in this search: stats.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Blme4-nlme%5D+anova+summary - there might be something relevant. Are both anova() and summary() from lmerMod?
|
|
| May 15, 2017 at 9:16 | history | edited | amoeba | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| May 15, 2017 at 9:10 | history | edited | amoeba | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags
|
| May 15, 2017 at 7:35 | history | edited | Ishisht | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4967 characters in body
|
| May 15, 2017 at 7:30 | history | edited | Ishisht | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4967 characters in body
|
| May 13, 2017 at 18:36 | comment | added | Ishisht | The design is in principle balanced, though there are some missing data (~5% off the top of my head) which are however more or less evenly distributed over the cells. sent.id is sentence id - the stimuli are sentences and so there is a random effects for those. | |
| May 13, 2017 at 1:15 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackStats/status/863201019899072512 | ||
| May 12, 2017 at 11:05 | comment | added | dbwilson | Is this is a balanced design? Also, I assume that sent.id is the sensor id? If so, it appears that you have a random effect for the sensor locations and fixed effects for the sensor locations. | |
| S May 10, 2017 at 8:57 | history | bounty started | Ishisht | ||
| S May 10, 2017 at 8:57 | history | notice added | Ishisht | Draw attention | |
| May 7, 2017 at 7:55 | history | asked | Ishisht | CC BY-SA 3.0 |