cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Check out the JMP® Marketplace featured Capability Explorer add-in
Choose Language Hide Translation Bar
evtran
Level I

Why are my fit models showing different factor significance? In "model 1", Random Block is a Random Effect rather than a Fixed Effect, whereas "model 2" lists all the factors as Fixed Effects.

When I clicked Fit Model, "model 1" popped up, including "Random Block & Random" as a factor, which means "Random Block" is a Random rather than Fixed Effect. However, When I run "model 2" with just "Random Block" as a factor, everything becomes less efficient. Which is more correct and why?

 

Also, I'm used to the Model 2 output, in which I can click on Scaled Estimates. And I was taught at a JMP training that those are half estimates, so I need to multiply those by 2 to get the real changes in the response. The Model 1 output, which I've never seen before, does not allow you to select Scaled Estimates, why is that?

 

Model 1 and Parameter Estimates:

evtran_4-1648598014131.pngevtran_3-1648597646097.png

 

Model 2 and Scaled Estimates:

evtran_0-1648597530148.pngevtran_2-1648597612414.png

 

 

3 REPLIES 3

Re: Why are my fit models showing different factor significance? In "model 1", Random Block is a Random Effect rather than a Fixed Effect, whereas "model 2" lists all the factors as Fixed Effects.

Fitting different models will yield different results. Treating the block as a fixed or a random effect is a big difference. First, it changes the parameters in the model. A fixed effect for 4 blocks requires 3 parameters. That difference will change the degrees of freedom for the sum of squares for the model and the error, which will affect significance metrics. A random effect for 4 blocks requires 1 parameter. A mixed effects models by default in JMP uses REML for estimation. REML adjusts the degrees of freedom so this method will also affect the significance metrics.

lazzybug
Level III

Re: Why are my fit models showing different factor significance? In "model 1", Random Block is a Random Effect rather than a Fixed Effect, whereas "model 2" lists all the factors as Fixed Effects.

If we use block as random effect to build model, what prediction method we should use for the future run? I saw one is normal prediction, the other is conditional prediction. The formula is if block A = y1, Block B = y2, otherwise is 0. Can you explain how this works? What’s equation to calculate confidence interval? I cannot see a formula in the software like normal model.
statman
Super User

Re: Why are my fit models showing different factor significance? In "model 1", Random Block is a Random Effect rather than a Fixed Effect, whereas "model 2" lists all the factors as Fixed Effects.

Just to generalize Mark's points, statistical significance is a conditional statement. If the inference space or the terms in the model or estimates of the error change, so can statistical significance.

"All models are wrong, some are useful" G.E.P. Box