| To: | S-news <s-news@wubios.wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Really simple question about lme output. |
| From: | Nicola Koper <nkoper@yahoo.com> |
| Date: | Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:43:17 -0800 (PST) |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=OYRd24zcfiOOkYc+ku7NQRkX4zHkfpnVb+OI8xP/f9lUft4Xs+P4p1Yd3THXN7VTCRcsBIjE1zpLZAa5J9j8xYmJWe6sML1ZKez0lICDixqIQrmCppYYJEG2gyMBfH/SPtg0+tb3TvuRNVhLCUka/gtVo7Pg2bHQBWzX6oqaOvE=; |
Hi everyone, this question is really simple. I've used
lme for a while and just want to make sure that I'm
interpreting some of the output correctly.
The output from LME includes 2 tables, an initial one
regarding the significance of the estimates, and the
second one, which is the ANOVA table. What is the
correct way to interpret each of these tables, and
what might be the explanation for the results (in
terms of significance) being quite different for both
tables?
In this data set, I have 130 plots, each sampled over
2 years (grouped by plot), and 3 fixed variables plus
their interactions: year, management, and location,
each of which are categorical with only 2 levels.
Thanks,
Nicky
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Random effects in summary lme, Douglas Bates |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | blm: Extracting simulated values of parameters (blm.fit, betaMatrix, scaleMatrix), Tat, Tri Vi (TGRD) |
| Previous by Thread: | S+ function survmean, Data Analytics Corp. |
| Next by Thread: | blm: Extracting simulated values of parameters (blm.fit, betaMatrix, scaleMatrix), Tat, Tri Vi (TGRD) |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |