Negative binomial errors
Instead of using quasi-Poisson errors (as above) we could use a negative binomial model. This is in the MASS library and involves the function glm.nb. The modelling proceeds in exactly the same way as with a typical GLM:
model.nb1<-glm.nb(Days~Eth*Sex*Age*Lrn) summary(model.nb1,cor=F) Call: glm.nb(formula = Days ~ Eth * Sex * Age * Lrn, init.theta = 1.92836014510701, link = log) (DispersionparameterforNegativeBinomial(1.9284)family taken to be 1) Null deviance: 272.29 on 145 degrees of freedom Residual deviance: 167.45 on 118 degrees of freedom AIC: 1097.3 Theta: 1.928 Std. Err.: 0.269 2 x log-likelihood: -1039.324
The output is slightly different than a conventional GLM: you see the estimated negative binomial parameter (here called theta, but known to us as k and equal to 1.928) and its approximate standard error (0.269) and 2 times the log-likelihood (contrast this with the residual deviance from our quasi-Poisson model, which was 1301.1; see above). Note that the residual deviance in the negative binomial model (167.45) is not 2 times the log-likelihood.
An advantage of the negative binomial model over the quasi-Poisson is that we can automate the model simplification with stepAIC:
model.nb2<-stepAIC(model.nb1) summary(model.nb2,cor=F) Coefficients: (3 not defined because of singularities) Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 3.1693 0.3411 9.292 < 2e-16 *** EthN -0.3560 0.4210 -0.845 0.397848 SexM -0.6920 0.4138 -1.672 0.094459 . AgeF1 ...
Become an O’Reilly member and get unlimited access to this title plus top books and audiobooks from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers, thousands of courses curated by job role, 150+ live events each month,
and much more.
Read now
Unlock full access