2012
DOI: 10.2478/v10048-012-0033-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimation, Testing, and Prediction Regions of the Fixed and Random Effects by Solving the Henderson’s Mixed Model Equations

Abstract: We present a brief overview of the methods for making statistical inference (testing statistical hypotheses, construction of confidence and/or prediction intervals and regions) about linear functions of the fixed effects and/or about the fixed and random effects simultaneously, in conventional simple linear mixed model. The presented approach is based on solutions from the Henderson's mixed model equations.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We ran planned comparisons by setting the positive control to the intercept to determine if the sparrowhawk’s behavior or state affected blue tit behavioral response. Our models were fit using REML and t tests used Satterthwaite approximations to estimate degrees of freedom as this is one accepted method for estimating degrees of freedom for mixed models in order to generate p values (Witkovský 2012 ). We did not correct these planned comparisons for multiple tests as it can be argued that as they were orthogonal (all treatments are tested against the negative control), no experiment-wise type I error rate corrections are necessary (Ruxton and Beauchamp 2008 ) and using a method such as a Bonferroni correction could be overly stringent and increase the chance of committing type II errors to the point that we may overlook important differences in blue tit behavior (Rothman 1990 ; Perneger 1998 ; Feise 2002 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We ran planned comparisons by setting the positive control to the intercept to determine if the sparrowhawk’s behavior or state affected blue tit behavioral response. Our models were fit using REML and t tests used Satterthwaite approximations to estimate degrees of freedom as this is one accepted method for estimating degrees of freedom for mixed models in order to generate p values (Witkovský 2012 ). We did not correct these planned comparisons for multiple tests as it can be argued that as they were orthogonal (all treatments are tested against the negative control), no experiment-wise type I error rate corrections are necessary (Ruxton and Beauchamp 2008 ) and using a method such as a Bonferroni correction could be overly stringent and increase the chance of committing type II errors to the point that we may overlook important differences in blue tit behavior (Rothman 1990 ; Perneger 1998 ; Feise 2002 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A detailed mathematical explanation of the LMM and its analysis, which provides a theoretical background for the semantic model proposed below, can be found in Supplementary File 1 and the previous literature cited there [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first approach, denoted by FPC-lme, is a two step procedure to fit model (1). We first apply a functional principal component (FPC) analysis (Yao, 2007) to transform model (1) to the space of principal component scores, and then apply Henderson’s mixed model equations (Witkovsky, 2001) to get the best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE) for the fixed effects and get the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) for the random effects. The resulting estimates were finally reconstructed in time domain using basis expansion.…”
Section: Simulation Studymentioning
confidence: 99%