Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Discrepancy between summary() and tab_model() for brms models #935

Open
maxfarrell opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Discrepancy between summary() and tab_model() for brms models #935

maxfarrell opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@maxfarrell
Copy link

I'm having trouble formatting the summary of my hierachical brms model via tab_model()

I would like to essentially re-create what I see with summary(model) via brms.

I see that the "fixed-effect" coefficients differ slightly compared to the table, but more concerning is that the standard deviation parameters for my hierarchical components are not shown. Instead, there is a Tau estimate, which is not reflected in the summary() output.

Any advice or clarifcation on how to show the hierarchical group varances, rather than Taus would be greatly appreciated.

@strengejacke
Copy link
Owner

Coefficient may differ, depending on whether mean or median (or another centrality measure) is reported. tab_model() reports the variances, while summary() usually reports SD of the random effects parameter. You cannot change this part of the table output in tab_model(), unfortunately.
Alternatively, you may try following packages:

(There are probably more, but these are the packages I usually use)

@maxfarrell
Copy link
Author

Hi Daneil,

Thanks for the clarification. In this case, what is the tab_model() sigma^2 for the random effect denoting?

@strengejacke
Copy link
Owner

Sigma^2 is the resiudal variance (you also get this from the summary). See also https://easystats.github.io/insight/reference/get_variance.html, where Tau etc. are also explained.

You actually find most values directly in the summary output:

image

@strengejacke
Copy link
Owner

(just realized, you're talking about brms - the summary output may differ)

@maxfarrell
Copy link
Author

Hi Daniel,

Thanks - yes I'm fitting a hierarchical bernoulli model via brms so the output is different, and I don't think there should be an estimated sigma^2 term as that's not a parameter in the model (other than the sigmas for the hierarchical effects). Just wondering if this something coming out because I'm using brms when this function isn't supported for these types of models.

I'll look into the other pacakges you mentioned in the mean time

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants