Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ICC for Beta-Binomial GLMM? #291

Open
utekleong opened this issue May 11, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

ICC for Beta-Binomial GLMM? #291

utekleong opened this issue May 11, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
3 investigators ❔❓ Need to look further into this issue Enhancement 💥 Implemented features can be improved or revised

Comments

@utekleong
Copy link

Dear Developers,

I understand that the icc() supports models of the glmmTMB class. However, I could not find any documentation pertaining to the support of the beta-binomial distribution family.

Would I be able to use the icc function to check the ICC of an unconditional beta-binomial GLMM? If not, are there any alternatives or manual workarounds that I could implement?

Thank you so much, please do let me know if I overlooked anything.

Regards,
Utek

@strengejacke strengejacke added 3 investigators ❔❓ Need to look further into this issue Enhancement 💥 Implemented features can be improved or revised labels May 11, 2021
@bwiernik
Copy link
Contributor

@strengejacke I'm not sure why var.random isn't returned here and the var.dispersion looks wrong:

data(cbpp, package="lme4")
library(glmmTMB)
m <- glmmTMB(cbind(incidence, size-incidence) ~ period + (1|herd),
                              family=betabinomial(), data=cbpp)
insight::get_variance(m)
summary(m)

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member

The random effect variances can't be calculated because they're close to zero (see warning message). According to the dispersion variance: I adopted the code, and it's similar to the random effects variances. But not sure about this, in most cased it is zero, I think.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3 investigators ❔❓ Need to look further into this issue Enhancement 💥 Implemented features can be improved or revised
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants