Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: Unbalanced repeated measures analysis question
From
K Jensen <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: Unbalanced repeated measures analysis question
Date
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:33:05 +0100
Thanks to Robert and David for your helpful comments. Sorry to sound
stupid here but mixed models are entirely new to me. I have been
reading up on them.
I have the variables outlined below:
SubjectID MeasurerID MeasurerType Result GoldStandard
where MeasurerID is always a certain MeasurerType (1-3)
SubjectID and MeasurerID should be random effects and MeasurerType
fixed? How would you specify that in the xtmixed syntax? I am
confused about having two grouping variables for the random effects.
Karin
On 21 July 2010 22:37, Ploutz-Snyder, Robert (JSC-SK)[USRA]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Karin,
> I feel your pain RE Stata's anova syntax for repeated measures...
> But I also agree with David that I think your better bet is
> probably to use -xtmixed- and then apply -margins- for your
> post-hoc comparisons, given the imbalance issue. You can use
> -margins- to compare each of the three measures to the gold
> standard--akin to simple effect contrasts.
>
> If you wish to remain in the anova syntax, you might want to
> check out the user written -anovalator- command, thanks to Phil
> Ender from UCLA. But from the sounds of your imbalanced design,
> I would tend to lean more to -xtmixed- with -margins-
>
> (BTW--the Phil's website at UCLA has some nice walk-throughs
> of all of this.)
>
> Rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Airey, David C
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:07 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: re: st: Unbalanced repeated measures analysis question
>
>
> I think when you have comparisons to a gold standard, or all
> comparisons with one control, that there are specific ANOVA
> post-hoc tests that perform better than all possible or all
> pairwise comparisons procedures.
>
> There is the complication that you are testing for equivalence,
> as you say.
>
> The Stata command -xtmixed- can do what -anova- can. Sometimes
> -manova- or -mvtest- is useful with repeated measures too.
>
> It is hard to understand how your design is unbalanced without
> seeing the data cross-tabs, etc.
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have data on measuring a biological property for three different
>> methods plus a gold standard. Different people were trained in each
>> method (1,2 or 3) and measured the same subjects during different
>> sessions, together with the gold standard measurement.
>>
>> So the data look like
>> SubjectID MeasurerID MeasurerType Result GoldStandard Diff
>> 1 1 1 95 99 -4
>> 1 2 3 102 99 +3
>> 1 3 2 92 99 -7
>> ...
>> 1 10 3 105 99 +6
>> 2 1 3 98 100 -2
>> ...
>>
>> Sometimes patients would be called in to see the consultant and so
>> missed for a particular measurer, but otherwise all the measurers
>> would measure all the patients seen in a particular session. Different
>> sets of measurers (but all trained by methods 1,2 or 3) were used on
>> each session (individual measurers 1-10 on session 1, 11-20 on session
>> 2 etc).
>>
>> The gold standard measurements on each session are roughly normally
>> distributed, as are the differences from the gold standard. We are
>> interested in the accuracy of each of the three methods.
>>
>> Is it OK to do some sort of repeated measures ANOVA here, with an
>> unbalanced design? If it is what would be the syntax (Stata 10)? Sorry
>> to sound pathetic but I just can't get the anova command with the
>> repeated option to work here.
>>
>> Is there a better measure to use than the difference to reflect the
>> fact that we are interested in a comparison with a gold standard?
>>
>> Thankyou
>> Karin
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/