"Dieter Menne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have compared glmmPQL, glmmML, geese and GLMM, results and code see below. > I am aware that glmmPQL uses another method to handle the problem, and > geese (geepack) has considerable different assumptions, but the > results are very similar. On the other hand, I had expected that glmmML > results, if reasonable at all, should be close to GLMM. Yet they are not, > but rather come close to the other three.
I suspect that a small simulation study would be enlightening. Given the experimental status of lme4, I wouldn't feel too sure that there is agreement between theory and implementation. There might be a bug there, or maybe all the other methods make essentially the same (large) error. In either case, I'd certainly like to know the reason. -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
