<?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: GLIMMIX for continuous response whith non-normal residuals? in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-for-continuous-response-whith-non-normal-residuals/m-p/426772#M22417</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Sir StatsMan,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It looks that the residuals are not really "out of whack". It seems reasonable to decided that the residuals do not violate the assumption of normality. Thank you for your advise.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Marcel&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:36:12 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>marcel</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-01-11T05:36:12Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>GLIMMIX for continuous response whith non-normal residuals?</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-for-continuous-response-whith-non-normal-residuals/m-p/426297#M22396</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am analyzing a continuous response and fixed and random factors. I run a Proc MIXED analysis (code below = "Main Analysis"). The diagnostic indicates that the residuals are non-normal ("Residual Diagnostic", below). The best transformation to normalize the residuals is the Johnson transformation. I read opinions from many statisticians on normalizing the residuals through transformation, and many are in favor but many others are against using transformations.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Is it advisable to use GLIMMIX in this situation?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Below are my original codes:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;MAIN ANALYSIS&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;&lt;CODE class=" language-sas"&gt;proc mixed data = WORK.FED28 order=internal covtest
class Status IDs InSta OrIs MotherSt
model Fed28 = InSta/ solution ddfm=sat residual outpred=pdat128Fec28;
random OrIs OrIs*InfSta MotherSt(InSta OrIs);
format InSta InfStafmt.;
ods output solutionR = eblupsdatf28 influence = inff28;
run;&lt;/CODE&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;RESIDUAL DIAGNOSTIC&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;&lt;CODE class=" language-sas"&gt;proc univariate data=pdat128Fec28 normal;
class Status ;
var studentresid;
qqplot / normal(mu=est sigma=est) nrow=1;
format Status Statusfmt.;
run;&lt;/CODE&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="SAS_Communities_01_09_2018.jpg" style="width: 600px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://communities.sas.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/17741i66C64950D5864E88/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="SAS_Communities_01_09_2018.jpg" alt="SAS_Communities_01_09_2018.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Marcel&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:15:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-for-continuous-response-whith-non-normal-residuals/m-p/426297#M22396</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-10T02:15:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLIMMIX for continuous response whith non-normal residuals?</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-for-continuous-response-whith-non-normal-residuals/m-p/426444#M22402</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The tests for Normality produced by PROC UNIVARIATE are very strict and will detect very small departures from normality.&amp;nbsp; Most statisticians rely on looking at a plot of the residuals.&amp;nbsp; If the plot of the residuals is not too far out of whack, then accept the assumption of the normality of the residuals and move on.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In your case, the residuals are a little peaked according to the QQ plot.&amp;nbsp; This assessment comes down to an opinion rather than a strict statistical test, but again most statisticians just look at this plot and make a decision from that look.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You asked in the title about using GLIMMIX if the response has non-normal residuals.&amp;nbsp; You do have different distributions you can assume for the response, but nothing that will adjust the residuals if you want to use a normal distribution.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:52:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-for-continuous-response-whith-non-normal-residuals/m-p/426444#M22402</guid>
      <dc:creator>StatsMan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-10T13:52:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLIMMIX for continuous response whith non-normal residuals?</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-for-continuous-response-whith-non-normal-residuals/m-p/426772#M22417</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Sir StatsMan,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It looks that the residuals are not really "out of whack". It seems reasonable to decided that the residuals do not violate the assumption of normality. Thank you for your advise.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Marcel&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:36:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-for-continuous-response-whith-non-normal-residuals/m-p/426772#M22417</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-11T05:36:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

