Dear All,
this is something that, I believe, has already come up in the past.
However, I'd like to check it again.
What are the issues with, say, regressing shape on size, saving
residuals and using those in further analyses (e.g., other regressions
or testing group differences etc.)?
I suspect that all the factors (size, other predictors, groups etc.)
should be incorporated in a single model and may have a partial
intuition about some of the problems with rerunning, instead, analyses
on residuals but I'd be very grateful to know how those with a better
understanding of the methods see it.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers
Andrea
--
Dr. Andrea Cardini
Researcher, Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche e Geologiche, Università di
Modena e Reggio Emilia, Via Campi, 103 - 41125 Modena - Italy
tel. 0039 059 2058472
Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Forensic Science , The
University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009,
Australia
E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected]
WEBPAGE: https://sites.google.com/site/alcardini/home/main
FREE Yellow BOOK on Geometric Morphometrics:
http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/public/journals/3/issue_241_complete_100.pdf
--
MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MORPHMET" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
