LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (September 2010)Back to main SPSSX-L pageJoin or leave SPSSX-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:34:17 -0400
Reply-To:     Art@DrKendall.org
Sender:       "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Art Kendall <Art@DrKendall.org>
Organization: Social Research Consultants
Subject:      Re: Generalized Estimating Equations (Clustering)
Comments: To: "Simon - slmartys@gmail.com" <slmartys@GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <201009152016.o8FAniBU024064@malibu.cc.uga.edu>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I am up on design of experiments but not on the GEE procedure (i.e., with a dichotomous DV). Perhaps someone else is more familiar with GEE.

BTW I see this as repeated measures. I am familiar with "clustering" in the context of cluster analyses (pattern detection) and in the context of clusters of cases in complex samples, but may be missing something in the subject of the OP. Do GEE people use "clustering" to refer to repeated measures, i.e., the same measurement method on the same case/dyad under different conditions (doses, times, member of a dyad, litter mates, etc.)

Also please explicate what you mean about the twins being more correlated rather than the measurements o the twins being more correlated? or were you just using shorthand?

Also if you are trying to tease out heredity vs environment the difference between the adjusted correlations for measurements within each kind of win would be an important aspect.

Art Kendall

On 9/15/2010 4:16 PM, Simon - slmartys@gmail.com wrote: > Hmmm, I hadn't thought much about the MZ-DZ distinction because I was so > concerned with the other questions. My guess is that it wouldn't matter > for this, but if I wanted to account for it, would I add it as another IV > factor...? > > There is the problem that MZ twins are more correlated than DZ twins, so > we would guess that their residuals will be as well. Using the > exchangeable covariance matrix will provide the most rigorous correction > for clustering, correct? I'm bamboozled why someone told me independent > correlation matrix...he said it was "completely counterintuitive" but the > correct option. >

===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SPSSX-L page