Monday, August 2, 2010 - 1:30 PM

COS 4-1: Analyzing data from a split-plot experiment when the observations have overdispersed Poisson distributions

Philip M. Dixon and Jia Liu. Iowa State University

Background/Question/Methods

Ecologists often face a quandary when choosing how to analyze their data.  Should I transform data and use a traditional analysis, or use a modern computationally intensive analysis?  The traditional analysis is clearly an approximation; what is not commonly understood is that many modern analyses are also approximate.  Hence, the choice of analysis is not clear.  I consider various ways to analyze weed counts in a large multi-location evaluation of weed management strategies.  Farmer’s fields, the main plots, were classified into one of seven crop-rotation treatments, then divided in half.  One of two weed management strategies was randomly assigned to the half field. We consider the analysis of the number of weeds present at a specific point in time.  The weed counts are overdispersed relative to a Poisson distribution. 
The traditional analysis is to log transform the counts then assume a normal distributions for the random effects.  This leads to the standard analysis of a split-plot study.  A modern alternative is use a generalized linear mixed model assuming an overdispersed Poisson distribution and an additional random component to account for field-field variation.  The GLMM can be specified in different ways.
Results/Conclusions

We find that the split-plot analysis of transformed data has empirical rejection rates are close to the nominal 5% rate for all tests.  The most common analysis of overdispersed Poisson gives conservative tests of the main plot effects (empirical rejection rate < 5%) and very liberal tests of the split plot main and interaction effects.  When the overdispersion is moderate (variance associated with overdispersion > 1), the empirical rejection rate can exceed 60%. for a nominal 5% test.  An alternate specification of the model has an acceptable type I error rate. 

Modern analyses are not always better than traditional analyses.  For overdispered split-plot count data, traditional analyses are similar to some modern analyses.  Other modern analyses are badly behaved and should not be used.