Linear Mixed Models: Gum and Beyond

Open access

Abstract

In Annex H.5, the Guide to the Evaluation of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) [1] recognizes the necessity to analyze certain types of experiments by applying random effects ANOVA models. These belong to the more general family of linear mixed models that we focus on in the current paper. Extending the short introduction provided by the GUM, our aim is to show that the more general, linear mixed models cover a wider range of situations occurring in practice and can be beneficial when employed in data analysis of long-term repeated experiments. Namely, we point out their potential as an aid in establishing an uncertainty budget and as means for gaining more insight into the measurement process. We also comment on computational issues and to make the explanations less abstract, we illustrate all the concepts with the help of a measurement campaign conducted in order to challenge the uncertainty budget in calibration of accelerometers.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] BIPM IEC IFCC ILAC ISO IUPAC IUPAP OIML. (2008). Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM 1995 with minor corrections). JCGM 100:2008. http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf.

  • [2] ISO. (2005). Measurement uncertainty for metrological applications - repeated measurements and nested experiments. ISO/TS 21749:2005.

  • [3] Sakurai H. Ehara K. (2011). Evaluation of uncertainties in femtoampere current measurement for the number concentration standard of aerosol nanoparticles. Measurement Sience and Technology 22 024009.

  • [4] Lee J. Yang J. Yang S. Kwak J. (2007). Uncertainty analysis and ANOVA for the measurement reliability estimation of altitude engine test. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 21 (4) 664-671.

  • [5] Wang D.Y. Lin K.-H. Lo Huang M.-N. (2002). Variability studies on EMI data for electronic telecommunication and information technology equipment. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 44 (2) 385-393.

  • [6] Toman B. (2006). Linear statistical models in the presence of systematic effects requiring a Type B evaluation of uncertainty. Metrologia 43 (1) 27-33.

  • [7] von Martens H.-J. Link A. Schlaak H.-J. T¨aubner A. Wabinski W. G¨obel U. (2004). Recent advances in vibration and shock measurements and calibrations using laser interferometry. In Sixth International Conference on Vibration Measurements by Laser Techniques: Advances and Applications. SPIE Vol. 5503 1-19.

  • [8] ISO. (1999). Methods for the calibration of vibration and shock transducers - Part 11: Primary vibration calibration by laser interferometry. ISO 16063-11:1999.

  • [9] Jackett R.J. Barham R.G. (2013). Phase sensitivity uncertainty in microphone pressure reciprocity calibration. Metrologia 50 (2) 170-179.

  • [10] Pinheiro J.C. Bates D.M. (2000). Mixed-effects Models in S and S-PLUS. Springer.

  • [11] Searle S.R. Casella G. McCulloch C.E. (1992). Variance Components. John Wiley & Sons.

  • [12] Burdick R.K. Graybill F.A. (1992). Confidence Intervals on Variance Components. Marcel Dekker.

  • [13] West B.T. Welch K.B. Gałecki A.T. (2007). Linear Mixed Models: A Practical Guide Using Statistical Software. Chapman and Hall/CRC.

  • [14] Witkovský V. (2012). Estimation testing and prediction regions of the fixed and random effects by solving the Henderson’s mixed model equations. Measurement Science Review 12 (6) 234-248.

  • [15] Witkovský V. (2000). mixed.m - Matlab algorithm for solving Henderson’s mixed model equations. http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/200-mixed.

  • [16] Gelman A. Hill J. (2009). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel /Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press.

  • [17] W¨ubbeler G. Mickan B. Elster C. (2013). Bayesian analysis of sonic nozzle calibration data. In: FLOMEKO 2013: 16th International Flow Measurement Conference 24-26 September 2013. CEESI.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.122
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.157

CiteScore 2018: 1.39

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.325
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.881

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 229 123 3
PDF Downloads 113 73 1