Formulating mixed models for experiments, including longitudinal experiments

Article

Abstract

Mixed models have become important in analyzing the results of experiments, particularly those that require more complicated models (e.g., those that involve longitudinal data). This article describes a method for deriving the terms in a mixed model. Our approach extends an earlier method by Brien and Bailey to explicitly identify terms for which autocorrelation and smooth trend arising from longitudinal observations need to be incorporated in the model. At the same time we retain the principle that the model used should include, at least, all the terms that are justified by the randomization. This is done by dividing the factors into sets, called tiers, based on the randomization and determining the crossing and nesting relationships between factors. The method is applied to formulate mixed models for a wide range of examples. We also describe the mixed model analysis of data from a three-phase experiment to investigate the effect of time of refinement on Eucalyptus pulp from four different sources. Cubic smoothing splines are used to describe differences in the trend over time and unstructured covariance matrices between times are found to be necessary.

Key Words

Analysis of variance Longitudinal experiments Mixed models Multiphase experiments Multitiered experiments Repeated measures 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailey, R. A. (1981), “A Unified Approach to Design of Experiments,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. A, 144, 214–223.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Brien, C. J. (1983), “Analysis of Variance Tables Based on Experimental Structure,” Biometrics, 39, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brien, C. J., and Bailey, R. A. (2006), “Multiple Randomizations” (with discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B, 68, 571–609.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Brien, C. J. (2009), “Decomposition Tables for Multitiered Experiments I. A Chain of Randomizations,” The Annals of Statistics, to appear.Google Scholar
  5. Brien, C. J., and Demétrio, C. G. B. (1998), “Using the Randomisation in Specifying the ANOVA Model and Table for Properly and Improperly Replicated Grazing Trials,” Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 38, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brien, C. J., and Payne, R. W. (2006), “AMTIER Procedure,” in GenStat Reference Manual Release 9, Part 3. Procedure Library PL 17, eds. R. W. Payne and P. W. Lane, Hemel Hempstead, U.K.: VSN International, pp. 73–75.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, D., Cullis, B. R., Gilmour, A. R., and Gogel, B. J. (2007), Analysis of Mixed Models for S Language Environments: ASReml-R Reference Manual, Brisbane, Australia: DPI Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, R. A. (1935), Contribution to the discussion of “Complex Experiments,” by F. Yates, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Suppl. 2), 229–231. Incomplete extract at http:// hdl.handle.net/2440/15225 (accessed June 21, 2008).Google Scholar
  9. Hurlbert, S. H. (1984), “Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments,” Ecological Monographs, 54, 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Laird, N. M., and Ware, J. H. (1982), “Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data,” Biometrics, 38, 963–974.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Littel, R., Milliken, G., Stroup, W., Wolfinger, R., and Schabenberger, O. (2006), SAS for Mixed Models (2nd ed.), Cary, NC: SAS Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lorenzen, T., and Anderson, V. L. (1993), Design of Experiments: A No-Name Approach, New York: Dekker.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Nelder, J. A. (1965a), “The Analysis of Randomized Experiments With Orthogonal Block Structure. I. Block Structure and the Null Analysis of Variance,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Ser. A, 283, 147–161.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. — (1965b), “The Analysis of Randomized Experiments With Orthogonal Block Structure. II. Treatment Structure and the General Analysis of Variance,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Ser. A, 283, 162–178.Google Scholar
  15. Patterson, H. D. (1997), “Analyses of Series of Variety Trials,” in Statistical Methods for Plant Variety Evaluation, eds. R. A. Kempton and P. N. Fox, London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 139–161.Google Scholar
  16. Payne, R. W., Harding, S. A., Murray, D. A., Soutar, D. M., Baird, D. B., Glaser, A. I., Channing, I. C., Welham, S. J., Gilmour, A. R., Thompson, R., and Webster, R. (2008), The Guide to GenStat Release 11, Part 2. Statistics. Hemel Hempstead, U.K.: VSN International. Available at http://www.genstat.co.uk/ resources/ documentation/genstat-guide-statistics/ (accessed June 21, 2008).Google Scholar
  17. Pereira, R. A. G. (1969), “Estudo Comparativo das Propriedades Físico-Mecânicas da Celulose Sulfato de Madeira de Eucalyptus saligna Smith, Eucalyptus alba Reinw e Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden,” Ph.D. thesis, Escola Superior de Agricultura ‘Luiz de Queiroz,’ University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brasil.Google Scholar
  18. Piepho, H. P. (2006), Contribution to the discussion of “Multiple Randomizations,” by C. J. Brien and R. A. Bailey, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B, 68, 605.Google Scholar
  19. Piepho, H. P., Büchse, A., and Emrich, K. (2003), “A Hitchhiker’S Guide to Mixed Models for Randomized Experiments,” Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 189, 310–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Piepho, H. P., Büchse, A., and Richter, C. (2004), “A Mixed Modelling Approach for Randomized Experiments With Repeated Measures,” Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 190, 230–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinheiro, J. C., and Bates, D. (2000), Mixed Effects Models in S and S-PLUS, New York: Springer.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. R Core Development Team (2008), R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at http://www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
  23. Robinson, G. K. (1991), “That BLUP Is a Good Thing: The Estimation of Random Effects,” Statistical Science, 6, 15–51.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. S-PLUS 7.0 for Windows (2005), Insightful Corporation, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  25. Samuels, M. L., Casella, G., and McCabe, G. P. (1991), “Interpreting Blocks and Random Factors,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86, 798–821.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Self, S. G., and Liang, K.-Y. (1987), “Asymptotic Properties of Maximum Likelihood Estimators and Likelihood Ratio Tests Under Nonstandard Conditions,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 605–610.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Verbeke, G., and Molenberghs, G. (2000), Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Verbyla, A. P., Cullis, B. R., Kenward, M. G., and Welham, S. J. (1999), “The Analysis of Designed Experiments and Longitudinal Data by Using Smoothing Splines” (with discussion), Applied Statistics, 48, 269–311.MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. White, R. F. (1975), “Randomization and the Analysis of Variance,” Biometrics, 31, 552–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilk, M. B., and Kempthorne, O. (1956), “Some Aspects of the Analysis of Factorial Experiments in a Completely Randomized Design,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27, 950–985.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. Wolfinger, R. D. (1993), “Covariance Structure Selection in General Mixed Models,” Communications in Statistics, Simulation and Computation, 22, 1079–1106.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yates, F. (1954), “The Analysis of Experiments Containing Different Crop Rotations,” Biometrics, 10, 324–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of South AustraliaNorth TerraceAustralia
  2. 2.Departmento de Ciências Exatas, ESALQUniversidade de São PauloPiracicabaBrasil

Personalised recommendations