I've been working on a messy, repeated measures data set of endocrine data looking at a small group of variables (after eliminating several uninteresting contenders in exploratory data analysis), each of which is linked to a specific hypothesis about factors that lead to hormone expression. Information-theoretic reasons have pushed me to the full enchilada model (including the optional guac), which leaves me with a bit of conundrum.
Obviously, the issue of p-values in mixed effects models is one that's been well hashed, and I'm willing to accept much of the logic that's been put forward. df isn't naively calculable? Awesome, count me onboard. But in my my last model standing, how do I interpret whether my betas support or refute the predictions of these hypotheses? In a non-mixed effects context, I'd be looking to a p-value from my betas + SE to see if the predictions of the hypothesis(es) were supported, or whether my betas aren't different from 'no effect'.
Or, am I thinking about this all wrong? Because my top models (via AICc) include all the terms, do I therefore conclude that all three variables are biologically meaningful and therefore am only concerned with the direction of the betas?