I am performing linear mixed effects analysis on 4 time points (same individuals), with BMI and race as fixed effects in R using lme(). I am interested in both the main effects and interactions and have included a term for within subject random effects. My model is as follows:

   lme.model1<-lme(outcome~visit+bmi+race+visit*bmi+visit*race+bmi*race+visit*bmi*race, random=~1|subject,data=lme_data,na.action=na.exclude)

I then want to determine which main effect and interaction terms are significant. I have approached this by first building the model excluding the term I am interested in, for example if I wanted to know if the race term has a significant effect I would use the following:

lme.model2<-lme(outcome~visit+bmi+visit*bmi, random=~1|subject,data=lme_data,na.action=na.exclude

            Model df AIC       BIC    logLik      Test L.Ratio p-value
lme.model1     1 26 11.166337 107.7234 20.41683                       
lme.model2     2 14  3.879536  55.8718 12.06023 1 vs 2 16.7132  0.1607

However, using:

               numDF denDF  F-value p-value
(Intercept)        1   205 41515.74  <.0001
visit              3   205    19.88  <.0001
bmi                2    74     4.63  0.0128
race               1    74     6.59  0.0123
visit:bmi          6   205     2.74  0.0140
visit:race         3   205     2.22  0.0869
bmi:race           2    74     0.06  0.9436
visit:bmi:race     6   205     0.42  0.8633

I know the first example comparing the two models uses a likelihood ratio and the second uses anova with type 1 SS (which from what I read is preferable when you want to look at interactions). However, since these give different results and interpretations for race as a main effect, what is the most acceptable method of determining significance of main effects (and interactions) in my case? Is there an acceptable 'norm'?

  • $\begingroup$ I think you may need to tell us what models you chose and, more importantly, show us the output from your commands rather than just a summary of it. $\endgroup$
    – mdewey
    Oct 10, 2017 at 17:36
  • $\begingroup$ Updated post with output from the anova() commands. Models are listed above as lme.model1 and lme.model2. $\endgroup$
    – Singe
    Oct 10, 2017 at 17:52

1 Answer 1


I am generalizing here. We usually begin to build the complex model (including interactions). Then elimit the interactions first, if they are not significant. Then start comparing models with/without fixed effects (including their interactions) of interest. Comparing on a model level gives the opportunity to test for complex differences at once, e.g. include/exclude multiple fixed effects and/or interactions (if that may be of interest to you).

Note that when you test multiple effects at once, particularly in a small sample size, the LR based testing may give unexpectedly small p-values ("anticonservative"; Pinheiro & Bates (2000) Mixed-effects Models in S and S-PLUS. p.88). Thus the F test may be better when a small sample size is given and multiple parameters are to be removed from the model.

I'm definitely interested to know if people follow different strategies.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.