[R] GLMM (lme4) vs. glmmPQL output

Peter Dalgaard p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk
Mon Jan 12 16:24:34 CET 2004

"Dieter Menne" <dieter.menne at menne-biomed.de> writes:

> I have compared glmmPQL, glmmML, geese and GLMM, results and code see below.
> I am aware that glmmPQL uses another method to handle the problem, and
> geese (geepack) has considerable different assumptions, but the
> results are very similar. On the other hand, I had expected that glmmML
> results, if reasonable at all, should be close to GLMM. Yet they are not,
> but rather come close to the other three.

I suspect that a small simulation study would be enlightening. Given
the experimental status of lme4, I wouldn't feel too sure that there
is agreement between theory and implementation. There might be a bug
there, or maybe all the other methods make essentially the same
(large) error. In either case, I'd certainly like to know the reason.

   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907

More information about the R-help mailing list