Rolf Turner-3 wrote:
>
>
> On 8/04/2009, at 1:27 PM, Ben Bolker wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I agree that that the individual-level random effect is probably
>> the issue.
>> I played with this some today but didn't manage to resolve it --
>> tried JAGS/R2jags and glmer from lme4 but didn't manage to
>> get an estimate of epsilon that matched the input value. I'm
>> a little worried about binary data with an underlying random
>> effect, I think there's an identifiability problem there ...
>
> Oh dear. This is getting hairier than I expected ... and a bit
> over my head. The toy model proposed *looks* simple enough at
> first blush. I would've thought that if a model which is that
> simple doesn't ``work'', then what hope is there for the more
> complicated models that one needs for analyzing real data?
>
>
I don't think this is impossible, but it's a bit subtle, and might
be worth taking up on r-sig-mixed-models instead ...
Ben
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Simulate-binary-data-for-a-logistic-regression-Monte-Carlo-tp22928872p22949970.html
Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
