<?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: Compound Symmetry vs Random Intercept in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Compound-Symmetry-vs-Random-Intercept/m-p/59800#M2774</link>
    <description>Thanks Dale</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:55:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>trekvana</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-08-04T02:55:24Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Compound Symmetry vs Random Intercept</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Compound-Symmetry-vs-Random-Intercept/m-p/59798#M2772</link>
      <description>Hello all, my apologies if this has already been asked and answered.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
I have been reading Robert Weiss's Modeling Longitudinal Data for help on how to correlated data and my question centers around the two proc mixed commands&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
repeated / type = CS&lt;BR /&gt;
random intercept / type = UN&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
now when I run both models I get the same answers for the covariance parameters. According to Weiss the CS model has two parameters: the variance of the data (t^2) and correlation p. Now the RI model also has two parameters: the variance the data around the random intercept (s^2) and variance of the random intercepts themselves D.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Now Weiss says that t^2=s^2+D and that p=D/(s^2+D). SO my question is whether the two procs give us the (t^2,p) parameters or the (s^2,D) parameters????&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Given that both procs give the same answers I am led to believe repeated / type=CS is actually giving me the (s^2,D) parameters and I actually have to solve for t^2 and p to get the true CS parameters. What is everyone's thoughts on this?&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Thanks!!!&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Thanks</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:53:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Compound-Symmetry-vs-Random-Intercept/m-p/59798#M2772</guid>
      <dc:creator>trekvana</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-03T02:53:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Compound Symmetry vs Random Intercept</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Compound-Symmetry-vs-Random-Intercept/m-p/59799#M2773</link>
      <description>You are correct that both models are returning the parameter set (s^2,D) and that if you want t^2 and p, you would have to solve for them.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
I don't know why you call the parameter set (t^2,p) the "true CS parameters".  The set (t^2,p) conforms to one parameterization of a compound symmetric residual covariance structure if you project t^2 on to the diagonal and p*(t^2) onto the off-diagonal terms of the covariance matrix..&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
You might note in this phrase that we are dealing with a covariance matrix.  The parameter p is not directly observed in the variance/covariance matrix.  Rather, the value of p for a particular row and column is the ratio of an off-diagonal covariance term to the square root of the product of the two variances indexed by the pairs (row,row) and (column,column).  In a compound symmetric matrix, the diagonal terms are all the same (t^2) and the off-diagonal terms are all the same.  Because the diagonal terms are a constant (the sum of the variance of the means and the variance about the means) and the off-diagonal terms are a constant (the variance of the means), the correlation of any two observations from a given subject is constant.  But you observe that we are defining p in terms of variances.  I would say that the parameterization which SAS employs for a compound symmetric covariance structure is the natural parameterization.  (Note the avoidance of the term "true parameterization.")&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
By the way, it is probably quite rare that one would encounter a compound symmetric error structure when modeling longitudinal data.  It is possible - but not likely.  Observations which are adjacent in time would typically have a stronger correlation than observations which are distant in time.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:28:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Compound-Symmetry-vs-Random-Intercept/m-p/59799#M2773</guid>
      <dc:creator>Dale</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-03T18:28:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Compound Symmetry vs Random Intercept</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Compound-Symmetry-vs-Random-Intercept/m-p/59800#M2774</link>
      <description>Thanks Dale</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:55:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Compound-Symmetry-vs-Random-Intercept/m-p/59800#M2774</guid>
      <dc:creator>trekvana</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-04T02:55:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

