Here are my answers: Why did you switch from a normal distribution assumption to a gamma distribution assumption? I presume that "GMP_log" is a log transformation of GMP. The gamma distribution uses a log link. Is it appropriate to essentially "double up" with a log transformation? I first did square-root and log tranform for the dependent variable in order to see if the data meets normal distribution assumption. The double up occurred after I found none of these transformed data met the normality assumption. I specified the distribution as gamma in the proc glimmix while I still maintained the transformed DV. I was trying to make the model converge with transformed DV because while the model converged well with gaussian distribution, it did not easily converge with the gamma distribution. If you specify a distribution other than normal (for example, gamma), why would you choose to test normality of residuals from a generalized linear (mixed) model? I tested normality assumption first and went to choose gamma distribution later. But, I realize that you pointed out why I tested the normality assumption again after I decided to go with gamma distribution, and I think that is a good point. I was listening to one statistician's advice, and I think he was wrong to advise me to test it one more time. Does this answer your question? What is the purpose of random _residual_ / group=phase_info1; and how does that work with a gamma distribution (compared to a normal distribution) and how does it mesh with your desire to assess the distribution of the pooled residuals? I've learned that in proc glimmix, people replace repeated statement to 'random _residual_' statement. However, I did not use above statement to make this adjustment, but because my data did no meet the homogeneous of variance assumption. So for me, although "phase_info1" really is a repeated variable, this statement was nothing to do with the repeated condition, but to make adjustments for heterogeneity of variance problem. Also, as far as I remember, the statement I used 'random _residual_' statement slided by the condition variable was something I learned from you in another previous thread of mine at sas.com as a remedy for heteroscadasticity problem. As I write here, I think maybe I will need to use above residual value to test homogeneity of variance one more time after I make random _residual_ statement to check whether this statement really ensures this assumption. What do you think? Is there a better remedy than this statement to accommodate for heteroscadasticity problem? If you have any further questions, please let me know. If I ask one question about GLM, I am learning that GLM allows to have more distribution options than normal distribution. If I decide to test data in GLMM and choose proc glimmix command, can I just ignore whether data meets normal distribution assumption or not?
... View more