<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Repeated measures proc glimmix - observations/subjects not correct in random statement in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Repeated-measures-proc-glimmix-observations-subjects-not-correct/m-p/287803#M15264</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;A lot going on here. &amp;nbsp;Some things are important, some are not, and some require looking at something other than what you might think have the results.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;First, look at the test of type 3 effects, and at the denominator degrees of freedom--is that giving expected results? &amp;nbsp;If so, don't worry so much about the table with subjects=1. &amp;nbsp;That merely indicates that you have not parameterized the first random statement with a subject= option.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Next, PROC GLIMMIX does not provide p values for testing individual variance components. &amp;nbsp; There are a couple reasons that spring to mind--distributional assumptions for testing are not easily input is the most important, and if there is more than a single covariance parameter, the tests involve mixtures of chi squared distributions. &amp;nbsp;However, you can use the COVTEST statement to get a variety of likelihood ratio tests that compare full and reduced models. &amp;nbsp;Alternatively, you might fit the data in separate runs, with different covariance structures or elements and compare information criteria to see which model best captures the information in the raw data.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thre is more that I might suggest here, but getting the subject= issue sorted out is the most important, and has to be done before moving to a conditional model--which I think is strongly suggested if you are considering genotype as a random effect, rather than as a fixed effect.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:03:25 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2016-07-28T14:03:25Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Repeated measures proc glimmix - observations/subjects not correct in random statement</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Repeated-measures-proc-glimmix-observations-subjects-not-correct/m-p/287629#M15252</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'm running a&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;repeated&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;measures&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;analysis in proc&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;glimmix&lt;/SPAN&gt;, but the analysis keeps is incorrectly assigning the number of observations per&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;subject&lt;/SPAN&gt;.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The experiment&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;measured&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;survival of individual blocks from four different geographic locations that were all grown in one location. I&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;measured&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;whether an individual plant was still alive (survival 1, 0 dead) every week over the summer until all plants died naturally.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Factors:&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;Home site - geographic locations a plant is from (fixed effect)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;Block - one of four locations at the site an individual was grown at (random effect)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;Genotype - family that a seed came from (family structure) - (random effect)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;Visit - week 1 through 11 that I took a census of each plant (random&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;repeated&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;measure&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;effect)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;Tag - unique id for each individual plant&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a sample of the data:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;TABLE border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;homsite&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;genotype&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;ind&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;tag&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;block&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;visit&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;survival&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;HF&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;3&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;563&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;4&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;HF&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;4&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;381&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;2&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;HF&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;5&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;6&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;HF&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;7&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;195&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;3&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;HF&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;104&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;2&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;231&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;3&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;HF&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;104&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;3&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;578&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;4&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;HF&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;104&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;7&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;61&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;HF&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;104&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;8&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;444&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;2&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;HF&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;105&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;3&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;584&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;4&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;PROC&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;GLIMMIX&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp; data = survival;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;CLASS homesite genotype block visit tag;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;MODEL survival(event='1') = homesite /dist=binary ddfm = kr;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;RANDOM genotype(homesite) block homesite*block;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;RANDOM visit/&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;subject&lt;/SPAN&gt;=tag type=vc residual;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;RUN;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;QUIT;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When I run the above&amp;nbsp;code and include a random statement for&amp;nbsp;the&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;repeated&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;measures&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;factor of visit with tag as the&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;subject&lt;/SPAN&gt;, the output shows that proc&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;glimmix&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;is only registering one&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;subject&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;which has 6512 observations. There should be 11 observations per 592&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;subjects&lt;/SPAN&gt;. Furthermore the random effects (covariance parameters) do not have any significance level only estimates/se.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;TABLE&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Dimensions&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;G-side Cov. Parameters&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;3&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;R-side Cov. Parameters&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Columns in X&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;15&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Columns in Z&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;168&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;Subjects&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;(Blocks in V)&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Max Obs per&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="lia-search-match-lithium"&gt;Subject&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;6512&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thank you for any help!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:23:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Repeated-measures-proc-glimmix-observations-subjects-not-correct/m-p/287629#M15252</guid>
      <dc:creator>LizfromPurdue</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-07-27T20:23:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Repeated measures proc glimmix - observations/subjects not correct in random statement</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Repeated-measures-proc-glimmix-observations-subjects-not-correct/m-p/287803#M15264</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;A lot going on here. &amp;nbsp;Some things are important, some are not, and some require looking at something other than what you might think have the results.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;First, look at the test of type 3 effects, and at the denominator degrees of freedom--is that giving expected results? &amp;nbsp;If so, don't worry so much about the table with subjects=1. &amp;nbsp;That merely indicates that you have not parameterized the first random statement with a subject= option.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Next, PROC GLIMMIX does not provide p values for testing individual variance components. &amp;nbsp; There are a couple reasons that spring to mind--distributional assumptions for testing are not easily input is the most important, and if there is more than a single covariance parameter, the tests involve mixtures of chi squared distributions. &amp;nbsp;However, you can use the COVTEST statement to get a variety of likelihood ratio tests that compare full and reduced models. &amp;nbsp;Alternatively, you might fit the data in separate runs, with different covariance structures or elements and compare information criteria to see which model best captures the information in the raw data.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thre is more that I might suggest here, but getting the subject= issue sorted out is the most important, and has to be done before moving to a conditional model--which I think is strongly suggested if you are considering genotype as a random effect, rather than as a fixed effect.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:03:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Repeated-measures-proc-glimmix-observations-subjects-not-correct/m-p/287803#M15264</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-07-28T14:03:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

