One approach to model building is to use all predictors that make theoretical sense in the first model. For example, a first model for determining birth weight could include mother’s age, education, marital status, race, weight gain during pregnancy and gestation period.
The main effects of this model show that a mother’s education level and marital status are insignificant.
(more…)
My poor colleague was pulling her hair out in frustration today.
You know when you’re trying to do something quickly, and it’s supposed to be easy, only it’s not? And you try every solution you can think of and it still doesn’t work?
And even in the great age of the Internet, which is supposed to know all the things you don’t, you still can’t find the answer anywhere?
Cue hair-pulling.
Here’s what happened: She was trying to import an Excel spreadsheet into SAS, and it didn’t work.
Instead she got:
The expression “can’t see the forest for the trees” often comes to mind when reviewing a statistical analysis. We get so involved in reporting “statistically significant” and p-values that we fail to explore the grand picture of our results.
It’s understandable that this can happen. We have a hypothesis to test. We go through a multi-step process to create the best model fit possible. Too often the next and last step is to report which predictors are statistically significant and include their effect sizes.
Mixed models are hard.
They’re abstract, they’re a little weird, and there is not a common vocabulary or notation for them.
But they’re also extremely important to understand because many data sets require their use.
Repeated measures ANOVA has too many limitations. It just doesn’t cut it any more.
One of the most difficult parts of fitting mixed models is figuring out which random effects to include in a model. And that’s hard to do if you don’t really understand what a random effect is or how it differs from a fixed effect. (more…)
When a model has a binary outcome, one common effect size is a risk ratio. As a reminder, a risk ratio is simply a ratio of two probabilities. (The risk ratio is also called relative risk.)
Risk ratios are a bit trickier to interpret when they are less than one.
A predictor variable with a risk ratio of less than one is often labeled a “protective factor” (at least in Epidemiology). This can be confusing because in our typical understanding of those terms, it makes no sense that a risk be protective.
In a recent article, we reviewed the impact of removing the intercept from a regression model when the predictor variable is categorical. This month we’re going to talk about removing the intercept when the predictor variable is continuous.
Spoiler alert: You should never remove the intercept when a predictor variable is continuous.
Here’s why. (more…)