Hello, Setup: I have data with ~10K observations. Observations come from 16 different laboratories (labs). I am interested in how a continuous factor, X, affects my dependent variable, Y, but there are big differences in the variance and mean across labs.
I run this model, which controls for mean but not variance differences between the labs: lm(Y ~ X + as.factor(labs)). The effect of X is highly significant (p < .00001) I then run this model using lme4: lmer(Y~ X + (1|labs)) #controls for mean diffs bw labs lmer(Y~X + (X|labs)) #and possible slope heterogeneity bw labs. For both of these latter models, the effect of X is non-significant (|t| < 1.5). What might this be telling me about my data? I guess the second (X|labs) may tell me that there are big differences in the slope across labs, and that the slope isn't significant against the backdrop of 16 slopes that differ quite a bit between each other. Is that right? (Still, the enormous drop in p-value is surprising!). I'm not clear on why the first (1|labs), however, is so discrepant from just controlling for the mean effects of labs. Any help in interpreting these data would be appreciated. When I first saw the data, I jumped for joy, but now I'm muddled and uncertain if I'm overlooking something. Is there still room for optimism (with respect to X affecting Y)? JJ [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.