Re: [R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

2008-10-09 Thread Julia S.
Hi Peter, thanks a lot for your help. Very much appreciated. Cheers, Julia Peter Dalgaard wrote: Julia S. wrote: Hi there, thanks for your help. I did read Bates statement several times, and I am very glad and thankful that many statisticians spend much time on this. The problem

Re: [R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

2008-10-08 Thread Dieter Menne
Bert Gunter gunter.berton at gene.com writes: I think we owe Doug Bates a little more respect than that! If you check my postings on the forum and on my homepage (subject: Gastric Emptying), you will find that there are few people that pay so much respect to Douglas Bates' contributions than I

Re: [R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

2008-10-08 Thread Julia S.
Hm. Bert Gunter wrote: that even the most technical aspects of the discipline can be made manifest to anyone with half a brain and a stat 101 course under their belt. I don't think this is something I can use in a rebuttal. The reviewer may be offended and reviewers are people one does

Re: [R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

2008-10-08 Thread Julia S.
Hi there, thanks for your help. I did read Bates statement several times, and I am very glad and thankful that many statisticians spend much time on this. The problem is, as Dieter pointed it out, that many end users often have to use statistics without being able to fully understand the math

Re: [R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

2008-10-08 Thread Peter Dalgaard
Julia S. wrote: Hi there, thanks for your help. I did read Bates statement several times, and I am very glad and thankful that many statisticians spend much time on this. The problem is, as Dieter pointed it out, that many end users often have to use statistics without being able to fully

Re: [R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

2008-10-08 Thread Rolf Turner
On 9/10/2008, at 12:34 AM, Julia S. wrote: Hm. Bert Gunter wrote: that even the most technical aspects of the discipline can be made manifest to anyone with half a brain and a stat 101 course under their belt. I don't think this is something I can use in a rebuttal. The reviewer may

Re: [R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

2008-10-07 Thread Dieter Menne
Julia S. julia.schroeder at gmail.com writes: Now, I did that in my article and I got a response from a reviewer that I additionally should give the degrees of freedom, and the F-statistics. From what I read here, that would be incorrect to do, and I sort of intuitively also understand why

Re: [R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

2008-10-07 Thread Kingsford Jones
You may find this site useful: http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/bib/lme4bib.html On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Dieter Menne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Julia S. julia.schroeder at gmail.com writes: Now, I did that in my article and I got a response from a reviewer that I additionally should

Re: [R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

2008-10-07 Thread Bert Gunter
Well, writing on my rebuttal, I find myself being unable to explain in a few, easy to understand (and, at the same time, correct) sentences stating that it is not a good idea to report (most likely wrong) dfs and F statistics. Without pretending to be able to discuss the details, may I

[R] lme and lmer df's and F-statistics again

2008-10-06 Thread Julia S.
Dear R-users, I did do a thorough search and read many articles and forum threads on the lme and lmer methods and their pitfalls and problems. I, being not a good statistician but a mere user, came to the conclusion that the most correct form of reporting statistics for a mixed linear model