I have created two mixed regression models, one with raw unstandardized variables and the same model with standardized variables. When I convert the coefficients from the standardized variables I get different coefficients, especially for the intercept.
Raw Unstandardized Variables
The model I use for the raw unstandardized variables is:
model <- lmer(MatchScore~ElapsedTime+UsableIrisArea+DilationChange+Sharpness+
(1|SubjectID)+(0+DilationChange|SubjectID)+(0+UsableIrisArea|SubjectID)+(0+ElapsedTime|SubjectID),
data=Data, na.action="na.fail", REML=FALSE)
summary(model)
I get the following results:
AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid
124741.4 124814.4 -62360.7 124721.4 10969
Scaled residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-8.1739 -0.5233 0.0491 0.5811 4.0564
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
SubjectID (Intercept) 16484.064 128.390
SubjectID.1 DilationChange 4.872 2.207
SubjectID.2 UsableIrisArea 2.510 1.584
SubjectID.3 ElapsedTime 6.593 2.568
Residual 4726.140 68.747
Number of obs: 10979, groups: SubjectID, 73
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -162.3829 19.1380 45.9334 -8.485 5.83e-11 ***
ElapsedTime -5.3536 0.4616 35.6739 -11.597 1.17e-13 ***
UsableIrisArea 6.4372 0.2381 46.6754 27.040 < 2e-16 ***
DilationChange -5.3044 0.3542 42.9306 -14.974 < 2e-16 ***
Sharpness 4.8622 0.1516 10793.8131 32.063 < 2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr) ElpsdT UsblIA DltnCh
ElapsedTime -0.038
UsableIrsAr -0.383 0.019
DilatinChng -0.008 -0.090 -0.018
Sharpness -0.037 0.041 -0.008 0.000
Standardized Variables
The model I use for the standardized variables is:
model2 <- lmer(MatchScore~ElapsedTime+UsableIrisArea+DilationChange+Sharpness+
(1|SubjectID)+(0+DilationChange|SubjectID)+(0+UsableIrisArea|SubjectID)+(0+ElapsedTime|SubjectID),
data=Data.Scaled, na.action="na.fail", REML=FALSE)
summary(model2)
I get the following results:
AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid
20216.8 20289.9 -10098.4 20196.8 10969
Scaled residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-8.1032 -0.5237 0.0489 0.5767 4.0852
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
SubjectID (Intercept) 0.280539 0.52966
SubjectID.1 DilationChange 0.010866 0.10424
SubjectID.2 UsableIrisArea 0.061813 0.24862
SubjectID.3 ElapsedTime 0.008361 0.09144
Residual 0.348526 0.59036
Number of obs: 10979, groups: SubjectID, 73
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -9.730e-02 6.478e-02 7.107e+01 -1.502 0.138
ElapsedTime -1.893e-01 1.638e-02 3.960e+01 -11.562 2.9e-14 ***
UsableIrisArea 5.306e-01 3.380e-02 4.388e+01 15.698 < 2e-16 ***
DilationChange -2.558e-01 1.678e-02 4.439e+01 -15.248 < 2e-16 ***
Sharpness 3.042e-01 9.508e-03 1.079e+04 31.992 < 2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr) ElpsdT UsblIA DltnCh
ElapsedTime 0.083
UsableIrsAr -0.061 0.022
DilatinChng 0.023 -0.093 -0.007
Sharpness 0.017 0.040 -0.003 -0.001
Then I convert the standardized coefficients using the logic in this post https://stackoverflow.com/a/23643740/2343633
The standardized coefficients are:
(Intercept) ElapsedTime UsableIrisArea DilationChange Sharpness
494.651361 -5.324217 8.430474 -3.339946 6.32240
This where it gets interesting - when converting the standardized coefficients the intercept actually makes sense, the match score should never fall below 0. Where as, the intercept from model with the unstandardized coefficients is negative - which makes absolutely no sense. Additionally, as you can see some the coefficients change for the transformed standardized coefficients, more specifically, Sharpness, UsableIrisArea, and DilationChange.
I would like to note that this data is very noisy and not all subjects have the same number of samples nor the same amount of time between samples. This is something that I can not change. Put simply, the data is what it is. My questions are:
Why would I get varying results with standardized and raw unstandardized variables. Is this a major issue?
Given the second model (the one with the standardized variables) makes more sense should this be the model I use?
Is there a more scientific way in determining if standardized or unstandardized variables is more appropriate for my model.
Any other suggestions, comments, or recommendations would be appreciated. If you need any additional information I more than happy to supply that.
(1|Subject) + (0+x|Subject) + (0+y|Subject)
) ...thus the results are no longer invariant to linear transformations of the variables ... the tipoff that you're fitting a different model is that the log-likelihood/AIC/BIC change between models (they shouldn't if all you're doing is re-parameterizing to an equivalent model). Do you get identical answers for both data sets if your RE term is(1+x+y+z|Subject)
(wherex
,y
,z
are your predictors)? ... Identical if you only scale rather than scale+center? $\endgroup$vignette("lmer",package="lme4")
for a bit more info ... $\endgroup$