<?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 and intraclass correlation coefficient interpretation? in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800864#M39379</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://communities.sas.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/15363"&gt;@SteveDenham&lt;/a&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;. I&lt;/SPAN&gt;s the residual variance for a response variable with a logistic distribution in a mixed model not&amp;nbsp;&lt;I&gt;π&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;/3 or 3.29?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&amp;nbsp;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;"&lt;EM&gt;In HGLMs, there is assumed to be no error at level-1, therefore, a slight modification is needed to calculate the ICC. This modification assumes the dichotomous outcome comes from an unknown latent continuous variable with a level-1 residual that follows a logistic distribution with a mean of 0 and a &lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;variance of 3.29&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt; (Snijders &amp;amp; Bosker, 1999 as cited in O’Connell et al., 2008). Therefore, 3.29 will be used as our level-1 error variance in calculating the ICC.&lt;/EM&gt;" -&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings15/3430-2015.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings15/3430-2015.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;STATA documentation states: "&lt;EM&gt;In a mixed-effects logistic and ordered logistic regression, errors are assumed to be logistic with mean 0 and variance γ.&amp;nbsp;Random intercepts are assumed to be normally distributed with mean 0 and variance σ&lt;I&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/I&gt; and to be independent of error terms. The intraclass correlation for this model is ρ = Corr(y*&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;ij&lt;/FONT&gt;, y*&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;i'j&lt;/FONT&gt; ) = σ&lt;I&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/I&gt; /γ + σ&lt;I&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; where γ =&amp;nbsp;σ&lt;I&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;1&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;&lt;FONT size="1"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;/I&gt;for a mixed-effects linear regression, γ = 1 for a mixed-effects probit and ordered probit regression,&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt; γ = π 2/3 for a mixed-effects logistic&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt; and ordered logistic regression, and γ = π 2/6 for a mixed-effects complementary log–log regression. The intraclass correlation corresponds to the correlation between the latent responses i and i' from the same group j.&lt;/EM&gt;" -&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://www.stata.com/manuals/meestaticc.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.stata.com/manuals/meestaticc.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P class="p1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;The logit "model also admits a latent variable formulation, except that this time the individual&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;error terms e&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;are assumed to follow standard logistic rather than standard normal&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;distributions. To be precise, we assume that Y&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;= 1 if, and only if, Y &lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;∗&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;&amp;gt; 0, just as&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;before. We further assume that Y &lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;∗&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;follows the linear mixed model in (&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s2"&gt;&lt;I&gt;1&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;) with mean&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;η and u&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;i &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;∼ N(0, σ&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;2&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;u&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;), but e&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;now has a logistic distribution with mean 0 and variance&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s3"&gt;&lt;I&gt;σ&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;2&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;e&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;. Just as before, we note that the scale of the latent variable is not identified. For&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;convenience, we take e&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;to have a standard logistic distribution, &lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;which happens to&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;I&gt;have variance π&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;2&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;/3 or approximately 3.29.&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;" -&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/116030/files/sjart_st0031.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/116030/files/sjart_st0031.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2022 15:02:51 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>PharmlyDoc</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-03-08T15:02:51Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>GLIMMIX and intraclass correlation coefficient interpretation?</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800268#M39365</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am trying to understand how to interpret the intraclass correlation coefficient, which I am calculating from proc glimmix.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;• For this example I am using the&amp;nbsp;Hospital, Doctor, Patient (HDP) dataset from UCLA.&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/r/codefragments/mesimulation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/r/codefragments/mesimulation/&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;• I will be modeling for the outcome of cancer remission and my fixed predictors will be IL6, CancerStage, Age, and FamilyHx, and patients are nested within hospitals (HID)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;• I will assume that I do not have doctor ID's (DID), so I will not be nesting by doctors, nor do I have variables describing the characteristics of hospitals&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;• I want to know the odds of remission by the specified predictors, while also accounting for differences in remission between or within hospitals -&amp;nbsp; which is where the intraclass correlation coefficient comes in.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;• These resource states to calculate the ICC from the "empty, unconditional model with no predictors", only the random intercept:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings15/3430-2015.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings15/3430-2015.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp; ,&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://www.lesahoffman.com/CLDP945/CLDP945_Example07a_Binary_Clustered.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://www.lesahoffman.com/CLDP945/CLDP945_Example07a_Binary_Clustered.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;,&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://www.lexjansen.com/sesug/2015/173_Final_PDF.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.lexjansen.com/sesug/2015/173_Final_PDF.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;,&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings12/350-2012.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings12/350-2012.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;– &lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Do I calculate the ICC from the random intercept model, or from the full model? How do I interpret the ICC?&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;With the random intercept model, I calculate an ICC of .093. Does this mean that&amp;nbsp;9% of the variability in going into remission is accounted for by the hospitals? --&amp;gt; ICC = Covariance Parameter Estimate/(Covariance Parameter Estimates + 3.29) --&amp;gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ICC = 0.3366/(0.3366+3.29) = .093&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;PRE&gt;&lt;CODE class=" language-sas"&gt;filename csvFile url "https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/stat/data/hdp.csv" termstr=crlf; 
 
proc import datafile=csvFile  
dbms=csv  
out=hdp ; 
getnames=yes; 
guessingrows=3000; 
run; 

proc sql;
select
distinct(FamilyHx)
from hdp;
quit;


proc glimmix data=hdp PLOTS=(ALL ODDSRATIO(logbase=10 TYPE=HORIZONTALSTAT)) namelen=30 ; 
class HID  ; 
   model remission(event='1') = 
/ distribution=binary link=logit cl  oddsratio solution ddfm=betwithin; 
   random intercept / subject=HID solution CL  ;
COVTEST /WALD; 
run; 
quit; 
/* Covariance Parameter Estimates for HID = 0.3366  
ICC = Covariance Parameter Estimate/(Covariance Parameter Estimates + 3.29) 
ICC = 0.3366/(0.3366+3.29)  = .093
9% of the variability in going into remission is accounted for by the hospitals? */
&lt;/CODE&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;With the full model, I calculate an ICC of 10%.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;PRE&gt;&lt;CODE class=" language-sas"&gt;proc glimmix data=hdp PLOTS=(ALL ODDSRATIO(logbase=10 TYPE=HORIZONTALSTAT)) namelen=30 ; 
class HID CancerStage(ref='I') FamilyHx(ref="no"); 
   model remission(event='1') = IL6 CancerStage Age FamilyHx
/ distribution=binary link=logit cl  oddsratio solution ddfm=betwithin; 
   random intercept / subject=HID solution CL ; 
COVTEST / WALD;
run; 
quit; 
/* Covariance Parameter Estimates for HID = 0.3721 
ICC = Covariance Parameter Estimate/(Covariance Parameter Estimates + 3.29) 
ICC = 0.3721/(0.3721+3.29)  = .1016
10% of the variability in going into remission is accounted for by the hospitals? */
&lt;/CODE&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2022 15:56:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800268#M39365</guid>
      <dc:creator>PharmlyDoc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-05T15:56:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLIMMIX and intraclass correlation coefficient interpretation?</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800321#M39366</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I am sorry for not answering your question directly, but I just wanted to make you aware about this :&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;S A S&amp;nbsp; S A M P L E&amp;nbsp; L I B R A R Y&lt;BR /&gt;Intraclass Correlations&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/stat/ex_code/131/intracc.html" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/stat/ex_code/131/intracc.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Also, please visit&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://www.lexjansen.com/" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.lexjansen.com/&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Then enter 'intraclass correlation' as search terms and hit the magnifying glass.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Good luck,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Koen&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2022 10:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800321#M39366</guid>
      <dc:creator>sbxkoenk</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-05T10:30:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLIMMIX and intraclass correlation coefficient interpretation?</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800357#M39367</link>
      <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://communities.sas.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/60547"&gt;@sbxkoenk&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I am sorry for not answering your question directly, but I just wanted to make you aware about this :&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;S A S&amp;nbsp; S A M P L E&amp;nbsp; L I B R A R Y&lt;BR /&gt;Intraclass Correlations&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/stat/ex_code/131/intracc.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/stat/ex_code/131/intracc.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Also, please visit&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://www.lexjansen.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://www.lexjansen.com/&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Then enter 'intraclass correlation' as search terms and hit the magnifying glass.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Good luck,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Koen&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the feedback. The example from the SAS Sample Library is unfortunately not helpful because it calculates inter-rater reliability. I searched lexjansen.com for &lt;STRONG&gt;"intraclass correlation" AND "3.29"&lt;/STRONG&gt; and for&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;"intraclass correlation" AND "glimmix"&lt;/STRONG&gt;, and the pertinent responses are listed in my original post.&amp;nbsp;I'm now looking for insight from other experts.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Interestingly, a 2018 SAS paper states:&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;"&lt;EM&gt;How Do You Compute an Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for a Non-Normal Response Model in PROC GLIMMIX (Binary, Multinomial, and so on)?&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;EM&gt; SAS is not aware of a generally accepted method for calculating an ICC in a logistic model, mainly because there is no concept of a residual variance in a logistic regression model. You can form your own ratios of the variance components in your model, but SAS does not endorse such an ICC calculation for a non-normal response model.&lt;/EM&gt;" -&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://www.sas.com/content/dam/SAS/support/en/sas-global-forum-proceedings/2018/2179-2018.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.sas.com/content/dam/SAS/support/en/sas-global-forum-proceedings/2018/2179-2018.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I wonder if SAS has since changed their position on endorsing an ICC calculation for a binary response response model?&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://communities.sas.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/60873"&gt;@jiltao&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2022 16:47:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800357#M39367</guid>
      <dc:creator>PharmlyDoc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-05T16:47:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLIMMIX and intraclass correlation coefficient interpretation?</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800844#M39377</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I doubt that there has been a change in the position.&amp;nbsp; The variance component ratios can be calculated, but the are NOT correlations.&amp;nbsp; In particular, there is no "residual" variance for the binomial distribution as the variance is a function of the point estimate, and changes for each level of a categorical predictor or each point along a continuous variable.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;SteveDenham&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2022 13:46:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800844#M39377</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-08T13:46:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLIMMIX and intraclass correlation coefficient interpretation?</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800864#M39379</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://communities.sas.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/15363"&gt;@SteveDenham&lt;/a&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;. I&lt;/SPAN&gt;s the residual variance for a response variable with a logistic distribution in a mixed model not&amp;nbsp;&lt;I&gt;π&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;/3 or 3.29?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&amp;nbsp;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;"&lt;EM&gt;In HGLMs, there is assumed to be no error at level-1, therefore, a slight modification is needed to calculate the ICC. This modification assumes the dichotomous outcome comes from an unknown latent continuous variable with a level-1 residual that follows a logistic distribution with a mean of 0 and a &lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;variance of 3.29&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt; (Snijders &amp;amp; Bosker, 1999 as cited in O’Connell et al., 2008). Therefore, 3.29 will be used as our level-1 error variance in calculating the ICC.&lt;/EM&gt;" -&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings15/3430-2015.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings15/3430-2015.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;STATA documentation states: "&lt;EM&gt;In a mixed-effects logistic and ordered logistic regression, errors are assumed to be logistic with mean 0 and variance γ.&amp;nbsp;Random intercepts are assumed to be normally distributed with mean 0 and variance σ&lt;I&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/I&gt; and to be independent of error terms. The intraclass correlation for this model is ρ = Corr(y*&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;ij&lt;/FONT&gt;, y*&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;i'j&lt;/FONT&gt; ) = σ&lt;I&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/I&gt; /γ + σ&lt;I&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; where γ =&amp;nbsp;σ&lt;I&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;2&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;FONT size="1 2 3 4 5 6 7"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;1&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;&lt;FONT size="1"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;/I&gt;for a mixed-effects linear regression, γ = 1 for a mixed-effects probit and ordered probit regression,&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt; γ = π 2/3 for a mixed-effects logistic&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt; and ordered logistic regression, and γ = π 2/6 for a mixed-effects complementary log–log regression. The intraclass correlation corresponds to the correlation between the latent responses i and i' from the same group j.&lt;/EM&gt;" -&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://www.stata.com/manuals/meestaticc.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.stata.com/manuals/meestaticc.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P class="p1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;The logit "model also admits a latent variable formulation, except that this time the individual&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;error terms e&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;are assumed to follow standard logistic rather than standard normal&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;distributions. To be precise, we assume that Y&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;= 1 if, and only if, Y &lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;∗&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;&amp;gt; 0, just as&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;before. We further assume that Y &lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;∗&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;follows the linear mixed model in (&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s2"&gt;&lt;I&gt;1&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;) with mean&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;η and u&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;i &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;∼ N(0, σ&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;2&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;u&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;), but e&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;now has a logistic distribution with mean 0 and variance&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s3"&gt;&lt;I&gt;σ&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;2&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;e&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;. Just as before, we note that the scale of the latent variable is not identified. For&amp;nbsp;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;I&gt;convenience, we take e&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;ij &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;to have a standard logistic distribution, &lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;which happens to&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;I&gt;have variance π&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN class="s1"&gt;&lt;I&gt;2&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;/3 or approximately 3.29.&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;" -&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/116030/files/sjart_st0031.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/116030/files/sjart_st0031.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2022 15:02:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800864#M39379</guid>
      <dc:creator>PharmlyDoc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-08T15:02:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GLIMMIX and intraclass correlation coefficient interpretation?</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800869#M39380</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Well, I learned something there.&amp;nbsp; The variance will converge in distribution to that value, but the estimate could be about anything with small to medium datasets.&amp;nbsp; And note that the mean converges to zero.&amp;nbsp; Now, I believe that is a good assumption for the null hypothesis of no differences, but the realization, given the data at hand, has for each level a non-zero mean, and if this is a multifactor model, the estimates of the level means won't necessarily sum to zero, if there is any imbalance in the data&amp;nbsp; That is one thing to consider.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The other thing that bothers me a bit is that if I plug into the formula for the sampling variance of a binomial (equivalent to the null model), it looks like n * p hat * (i&amp;nbsp; -&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; p hat).&amp;nbsp; If I plug in your null model value (0.3366) and assume a p hat value of 0.5 (a best case estimate) and solve for n, I get an n of about 13.&amp;nbsp; Does that seem correct for your data?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;SteveDenham&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2022 15:36:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/GLIMMIX-and-intraclass-correlation-coefficient-interpretation/m-p/800869#M39380</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-08T15:36:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

