What is the Mixed‐Models Controversy?

John A. Nelder

International Statistical Review, 2008, vol. 76, issue 1, 134-135

Abstract: Two papers have recently been published in this journal which purport to deal with the mixed‐models controversy (Lencina et al., 2005; Lencina & Singer, 2006, to be referred to as L1 and L2). In my view they do not represent the current state of thinking on this subject. My own work begins with Nelder (1977) and continues with papers in 1982, and particularly with Nelder (1994, 1995). Further papers are Nelder (1997), whose title includes the phrase ‘The great mixed‐model muddle’, and Nelder (1998). In Nelder (1994) I describe what I regard as three false steps that have generated confusion and show how a consistent treatment may be developed. The two most important ideas are (1) marginality relations between terms in a factorial model, and (2) why constraints must not be put on parameters because they are required on estimates.

Date: 2008
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2007.00022_1.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:istatr:v:76:y:2008:i:1:p:134-135

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0306-7734

Access Statistics for this article

International Statistical Review is currently edited by Eugene Seneta and Kees Zeelenberg

More articles in International Statistical Review from International Statistical Institute Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().