Mike Lawrence <mike <at> thatmike.com> writes: > >Would it improve things if "type" were a continuous variable rather >than categorical? I chose words at the extreme ends of a valence >rating scale but I still have the raw valence ratings for each word. > > > > > With the interaction, the extreme would be > > summary(lme(rt~type*color*word, data=a,random=~1|id)) > > > > or, less extreme > > > > summary(lme(rt~type*color+color:word, data=a,random=~1|id)) .. Something like
summary(lme(rt~type*color+color:as.numeric(word), data=a,random=~1|id)) (please replace as.numeric() by the raw valence, the example above it simply wrong) could gain you a few degrees of freedom if you are willing to accept the linear hypothesis. And as there is something like raw valence, one should not throw away details about a-priori ordering in favor of a categorical hypothesis. Dieter ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
