You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I noticed that report() of an anova() object does not provide correct/complete output for regression models (eg lm, lmer, glm).
In particular, it could be very helpful if report() could give an anova-like table of main and interaction effects of lmer or complex multiple lm() as coefficients parameters in these cases is sometimes hard to understand or some coefficients do not make sense empirically (i.e. expected difference for a numerical (age) coefficient of 0 between the levels of a categorical (use/non-use of electronic cigarette) coefficient for the VD (motivation to quit smoking)) and as reference for categorical comparison is taken without control on experimental or theoretical reasons in R.
Use of report for these models could be helpful for providing also effect size from sjstats and other relevant parameters of an anova() object to be reported in papers.
This is secondary but might help to report relevant information: report() does not work for anova() of model comparisons. Honestly, I do not know whether there are guidelines for model comparison reporting in psychology/neuroscience. However, report() could help for picking the right parameters (e.g. AIC, BIC or Chi2 and so on) and correct writing.
Lastly, would it be possible to get main and interaction effects for stan_lm/glm/lmer model with report()? the coefficient parameters output is the same as classic regression models and would be helpful to get the general effect of a predictor instead of its coefficient estimation.
How could we do it?
For instance, significance for fixed effects in lmer could be done with anova(model.lmer, dff = "Kenward-Roger) (Luke, 2017) or for other regression models as anova(model.lm) or anova(model.glm, test ="F").
I am not an expert in R programming and cannot help with actual coding, this is just a suggestion that I noticed during practical use of report() and R in general.
I noticed that report() of an anova() object does not provide correct/complete output for regression models (eg lm, lmer, glm).
In particular, it could be very helpful if report() could give an anova-like table of main and interaction effects of lmer or complex multiple lm() as coefficients parameters in these cases is sometimes hard to understand or some coefficients do not make sense empirically (i.e. expected difference for a numerical (age) coefficient of 0 between the levels of a categorical (use/non-use of electronic cigarette) coefficient for the VD (motivation to quit smoking)) and as reference for categorical comparison is taken without control on experimental or theoretical reasons in R.
Use of report for these models could be helpful for providing also effect size from sjstats and other relevant parameters of an anova() object to be reported in papers.
This is secondary but might help to report relevant information: report() does not work for anova() of model comparisons. Honestly, I do not know whether there are guidelines for model comparison reporting in psychology/neuroscience. However, report() could help for picking the right parameters (e.g. AIC, BIC or Chi2 and so on) and correct writing.
Lastly, would it be possible to get main and interaction effects for stan_lm/glm/lmer model with report()? the coefficient parameters output is the same as classic regression models and would be helpful to get the general effect of a predictor instead of its coefficient estimation.
How could we do it?
For instance, significance for fixed effects in lmer could be done with anova(model.lmer, dff = "Kenward-Roger) (Luke, 2017) or for other regression models as anova(model.lm) or anova(model.glm, test ="F").
I am not an expert in R programming and cannot help with actual coding, this is just a suggestion that I noticed during practical use of report() and R in general.
I appreciate your work!
Luke, S.G. Behav Res (2017) 49: 1494. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: