3
$\begingroup$

I'm using the GAMLSS package to model an ex-Gaussian analysis of reaction time data over two time points (repeated measure). When I include random effect for subject (very standard practice for repeated measures analyses as far as I know) the model fit GAIC is better, but the diagnostic Q-Q plot shows heavy tails (and likely inflated results) compared to the model without the random effect of subject - which shows truncated tails and more conservative results. I'm fine with being more conservative, but I don't understand the issue with model fit. This poster gets at the question but in my case it's a much more simple model: Selecting GAM with/without random effects - residual plots vs. AIC

Here's the GAMLSS model with the random effect, maybe I'm doing something wrong?

GAM_Va3 <- gamlss(formula = RT~ valence + random(subID), sigma.formula = ~ valence + random(subID), nu.formula = ~valence + random(subID), family=exGAUS(), data=na.omit(data))

Here's the GAMLSS model without the random effect GAM_Va4 <- gamlss(formula = RT~ valence, sigma.formula = ~ valence, nu.formula = ~valence, family=exGAUS(), data=na.omit(data1))

See Q-Q plots below

Q-Q plot with random effect Q-Q plot without random effect

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Hi there, did you ever get to the bottom of this? $\endgroup$
    – HCAI
    Aug 16, 2018 at 22:09

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.