A practical guide and power analysis for GLMMs: detecting among treatment variation in random effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In ecology and evolution generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) are becoming increasingly used to test for differences in variation by treatment at multiple hierarchical levels. Yet, the specific sampling schemes that optimize the power of an experiment to detect differences in random effects by treatment/group remain unknown. In this paper we develop a blueprint for conducting power analyses for GLMMs focusing on detecting differences in variance by treatment. We present parameterization and power analyses for random-intercepts and random-slopes GLMMs because of their generality as focal parameters for most applications and because of their immediate applicability to emerging questions in the field of behavioral ecology. We focus on the extreme case of hierarchically structured binomial data, though the framework presented here generalizes easily to any error distribution model. First, we determine the optimal ratio of individuals to repeated measures within individuals that maximizes power to detect differences by treatment in among-individual variation in intercept, among-individual variation in slope, and within-individual variation in intercept. Second, we explore how power to detect differences in target variance parameters is affected by total variation. Our results indicate heterogeneity in power across ratios of individuals to repeated measures with an optimal ratio determined by both the target variance parameter and total sample size. Additionally, power to detect each variance parameter was low overall (in most cases >1,000 total observations per treatment needed to achieve 80% power) and decreased with increasing variance in non-target random effects. With growing interest in variance as the parameter of inquiry, these power analyses provide a crucial component for designing experiments focused on detecting differences in variance. We hope to inspire novel experimental designs in ecology and evolution investigating the causes and implications of individual-level phenotypic variance, such as the adaptive significance of within-individual variation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.052 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".