Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

Re: st: Predictions based on reoprob and gllamm

From   Buzz Burhans <[email protected]>
To   [email protected]
Subject   Re: st: Predictions based on reoprob and gllamm
Date   Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:44:33 -0500

Dear Sophia,

I have used -gllamm- with adaptive quadrature to model a repeated measurement in time of a continuous outcome , using a model that has both a level 2 random intercept and slope. I would like to be able to make a statement about the relative proportion of the total variance associated with the 2nd level random effects relative to the proportion that is explained by a fixed effect treatment variable.

My reading (Snijders & Bosker, 1999; Hox, 2002) suggests this is problematic for a number of reasons. However, I think, in my case, that it would be very useful to be able to make such a statement, even if only approximate, about the relative magnitude of the total variance attributable to the level 2 random effects as it contrasts with the relative magnitude of the variance explained by a treatment variable. ( In my case, I would like to point out that despite the treatment being significant, the magnitude of the effect is small versus the inherent variance ascribable to the level 2 units.)

Can you suggest a reasonable basis for making this statement when gllamm is used for a model such as this? I would be more comfortable deriving an approximate R2 if the model was a random intercept only, I am unsure of how to do this given a random coefficient also. I will confess to following conceptually, but not specifically, the Snijders & Bosker discussion, and don't think I am proficient enough to implement it.

I would be most appreciative of any insight you can share on this.

Thanks very much.

Buzz Burhans

Buzz Burhans
[email protected]

* For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index