I'm quite confused about interpreting the results from the lme4 package. When looking through this webpage and google, it seems like more people are generally confused. I cannot find a clear overview on what to do with all the output, so I hope this thread can function as a general overview for more people.
I'll use my data as an example: I have a 4 (between:groups)x 2 (within:time) design. I am looking for an interaction effect on reaction times of an attentional control task (e.g. stroop task). Since I have an unbalanced design (16, 19, 14 and 17 obs per group) after removing outliers, I wanted to use the lmer function to run a mixed anova (or mixed model now) in R.
I run the following command:
options(contrasts = c("contr.sum", "contr.poly"))
lmer_mixed_ANOVA <- lmer(control_out ~time*Groups + (1|ID), data=data_RT_control)
print(Anova(lmer_mixed_ANOVA,type=3))
print(anova(lmer_mixed_ANOVA,type=3))
print(summary(lmer_mixed_ANOVA))
and I get this as output:
[1] "data_RT_control"
Analysis of Deviance Table (Type III Wald chisquare tests)
Response: control_out
Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
(Intercept) 291.1728 1 < 2.2e-16 ***
time 9.3639 1 0.002213 **
Groups 2.1204 3 0.547791
time:Groups 6.5060 3 0.089427 .
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Analysis of Variance Table of type III with Satterthwaite
approximation for degrees of freedom
Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F.value Pr(>F)
time 8164.2 8164.2 1 58.039 9.3639 0.003348 **
Groups 1848.8 616.3 3 58.980 0.7068 0.551774
time:Groups 5672.4 1890.8 3 57.995 2.1687 0.101448
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Linear mixed model fit by REML
t-tests use Satterthwaite approximations to degrees of freedom ['lmerMod']
Formula: control_out ~ time * Groups + (1 | ID)
Data: all_dataframes[[i]]
REML criterion at convergence: 1301
Scaled residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-2.4262 -0.5228 -0.1374 0.5249 2.3927
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
ID (Intercept) 262.2 16.19
Residual 871.9 29.53
Number of obs: 136, groups: ID, 70
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 54.778 3.210 59.020 17.064 < 2e-16 ***
time1 -7.819 2.555 58.040 -3.060 0.00335 **
Groups1 -3.448 4.399 58.990 -0.784 0.43626
Groups2 2.560 2.732 59.150 0.937 0.35263
Groups3 -1.519 1.830 58.900 -0.830 0.40978
time1:Groups1 -5.170 3.501 58.020 -1.477 0.14512
time1:Groups2 -3.987 2.176 58.160 -1.832 0.07200 .
time1:Groups3 -1.476 1.456 57.920 -1.014 0.31478
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr) time1 Grops1 Grops2 Grops3 tm1:G1 tm1:G2
time1 -0.031
Groups1 -0.035 0.021
Groups2 0.087 -0.004 0.027
Groups3 -0.022 0.002 0.020 -0.051
time1:Grps1 0.021 -0.044 -0.030 -0.016 -0.012
time1:Grps2 -0.004 0.087 -0.016 -0.033 0.002 0.034
time1:Grps3 0.002 -0.023 -0.012 0.002 -0.029 0.026 -0.051
This chunk of output is really overwhelming! Different tables give different p-values. Is there an overview, or would someone be willing to create an overview of how to interpret these outcomes step by step.