S×F vari­­ance: 3rd opinion [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by AngusMcLean – USA, 2015-01-14 22:29 (3822 d 00:30 ago) – Posting: # 14290
Views: 42,279

❝ I get the same complete 71 subjects (69 df) for T, 73 (71 df) for R, and 69 (67 df) as John reported in this post. From that I get exactly the variances he reported in SAS. The only difference is the Cinv for 67 df. I would get 49.16227 for p 0.05 instead of 0.95. Maybe I got sumfink wrong?


Helmut: 49.16 is what I have; as you say is is p 0.05 value one uses for Chisqu calculation for MI

❝ Can you check your code a fourth time, please? When you copied the R-workflow and modified it for T, please check whether the fixed effect in intermediate dlat is indeed Sequence (and not empty!). Sometimes PHX “forgets” the model specification during copy/pasting.


On the other hand the sequence is still specified in my copy of "Prepare data sets for analysis..." So it seems that the code needs to be altered from waht I have.

ANGUS

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,425 posts in 4,928 threads, 1,684 registered users;
36 visitors (0 registered, 36 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:59 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

No problem can stand the assault of sustained thinking.    Voltaire

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5