Hi listers!
I have a data of children tested approximately at the ages of 4, 5 and 6 yrs. N=192. 122 of them appear in the data-matrix only once, 29 appear twice and 4 even three times. Observations are thus partly correlated. The traditional (say) univariate anova goes from the assumption of independent rows in the data. I did the analysis using the mixed procedure where subject-variable is carrying the information of being the same child in different occasion. Most f=122 have unique value in this variable. Any thoughts of using the traditional vs mixed procedure? Syntax: MIXED W3YtS BY PIQgrp /METHOD=REML /PRINT=SOLUTION TESTCOV DESCRIPTIVES /FIXED= PIQgrp | SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS = TABLES (PIQgrp) COMPARE(PIQgrp) REFCAT(1) ADJ(LSD ) /RANDOM = INTERCEPT | Subject(Subject) covtype(ID). Erkki Komulainen ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
I think an important initial question is how/why did so many kids appear only once.
Gene Maguin -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Erkki Komulainen Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 11:25 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Mixed procedure in partly correlated data Hi listers! I have a data of children tested approximately at the ages of 4, 5 and 6 yrs. N=192. 122 of them appear in the data-matrix only once, 29 appear twice and 4 even three times. Observations are thus partly correlated. The traditional (say) univariate anova goes from the assumption of independent rows in the data. I did the analysis using the mixed procedure where subject-variable is carrying the information of being the same child in different occasion. Most f=122 have unique value in this variable. Any thoughts of using the traditional vs mixed procedure? Syntax: MIXED W3YtS BY PIQgrp /METHOD=REML /PRINT=SOLUTION TESTCOV DESCRIPTIVES /FIXED= PIQgrp | SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS = TABLES (PIQgrp) COMPARE(PIQgrp) REFCAT(1) ADJ(LSD ) /RANDOM = INTERCEPT | Subject(Subject) covtype(ID). Erkki Komulainen ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
Or, Why did those 29 or 33 happen to get measured at least twice?
I would want to compare the "multi-measured" to the rest, to find out if they differ.
If they differ, I would not like of the MIXED model; it buries information.
I would use the multiple measures to take a look at reliability/stability over time (and
age effect, within person); the N of 29 (or 33) is large enough to be useful.
I'm never excited by the complexity of the MIXED when so little information is added,
so I would certainly carry out (if only for my own satisfaction) analyses that used the
first record for each child.
--
Rich Ulrich
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion <[hidden email]> on behalf of Maguin, Eugene <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 1:42 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Mixed procedure in partly correlated data I think an important initial question is how/why did so many kids appear only once.
Gene Maguin -----Original Message----- From: SPSSX(r) Discussion <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Erkki Komulainen Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 11:25 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Mixed procedure in partly correlated data Hi listers! I have a data of children tested approximately at the ages of 4, 5 and 6 yrs. N=192. 122 of them appear in the data-matrix only once, 29 appear twice and 4 even three times. Observations are thus partly correlated. The traditional (say) univariate anova goes from the assumption of independent rows in the data. I did the analysis using the mixed procedure where subject-variable is carrying the information of being the same child in different occasion. Most f=122 have unique value in this variable. Any thoughts of using the traditional vs mixed procedure? Syntax: MIXED W3YtS BY PIQgrp /METHOD=REML /PRINT=SOLUTION TESTCOV DESCRIPTIVES /FIXED= PIQgrp | SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS = TABLES (PIQgrp) COMPARE(PIQgrp) REFCAT(1) ADJ(LSD ) /RANDOM = INTERCEPT | Subject(Subject) covtype(ID). Erkki Komulainen ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD ===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |