2
$\begingroup$

I have a data set from a repeated measures experimental design with different sets of stimuli. I want to know how strong the association between the continuous dependent variable and the continuous predictor is while accounting for the interindividual and interstimulus variation.

My lmer model description in R looks like this

dv ~ pred + (1 | subject) + (1 | stimulus) 

Question 1: I understand that it is non-trivial to calculate R squared for random intercept-slope models. Is the same true for random intercept models? Is there an R-implementation of any of the available methods?

Question 2: If I z-transform my dependent variable and predictor, will the parameter estimate for the fixed effect reflect the strength of the association such as it would in an ordinary regression model? Update: I think I phrased this questions too vaguely. I was wondering if scaling variables would yield standardized regression estimates. I found this question has been answered before in another question.

Question 3: Is there an entirely different/more appropriate way to quantify the association strength while controlling for the interindividual and interstimulus variation?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Q1: Yes, it is not trivial. Please check the following link http://glmm.wikidot.com/faq under the section How do I compute a coefficient of determination (R2), or an analogue, for (G)LMMs? as provides a quite good treatment of the issue; small 3-4 liners of code are presented that calculate an $R^2$ like measure. A rather helpful reference of the subject seems to be Xu's: Measuring explained variation in linear mixed effects models (2003) where the author computes the residual variance of the full model against the residual variance of a (fixed) intercept-only null model (in R syntax: 1-var(residuals(m))/(var(model.response(model.frame(m)))).

Q2: No, it would not reflect that. A crossed random effects structure in your data will still apply to the error structure you would assume in an OLS; you will just change the variances in your sample.

Just to put things into perspectice: your OLS assumes that $y \sim N(X\beta,\sigma^2 I)$, but you actually have that error diagonal structure only if you account for the "grouping in your samples" through the indicator variables $\gamma$, ie. $y|\gamma \sim N(X\beta+Z\gamma,\sigma^2I)$ (or unconditionally $y\sim N(X\beta,\sigma^2I+ZDZ^T)$), whitening your $X$ and $y$ does change the amplitude of $D$ and $\sigma$ ($D$ is the diagonal matrix holding the std. deviation of your random effects) but other than that your structure remains unchanged.

Unless you have problems with numerical stability I would not recommend z-transforming / whitening your sample variables.

Q3: Some people might suggest Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) but I think your approach is rather sensible and straightforward.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot. From the glmm-FAQ: "Researchers often want to know if there is a simple (or at least implemented-in-R) way to get an analogue of R2 or another simple goodness-of-fit metric for LMMs or GLMMs." Haha, true. ^^ $\endgroup$ – crsh Apr 30 '13 at 13:40

Your Answer

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

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