Mosteller & Tukey (1977). Data Analysis and Regression.

2. Mosteller & Tukey (1977). Data Analysis and Regression.

3. “Encouraging linguists to use linear mixed-effects models is like giving shotguns to toddlers.” Gerry Altmann (see Barr et al., 2013)

4. “A world of subjectivity” Sarah Depaoli “IF YOU BEAT THE DATA, AT SOME TIME IT WILL SPEAK”

5. “A world of subjectivity” Sarah Depaoli “… and then you publish and get tenure.”

6. LMM response ~ intercept + slope * fixed effect + error distinguish between testand control variables

7. Test vs. Control Variable Example pitch ~ politen * gender test variable controlvariable pitch ~ gender Null Model

8. Test vs. Control Variable Example vowdur ~ VowelType * Repetition test variable controlvariable vowdur ~ Repetition Null Model

9. Test vs. Control Variable Example Response ~ BLACK BOX Critical Effect Control 1 Control 2 RandomEffects

10. Test vs. Control Variable Example Response ~ BLACK BOX Critical Effect Control 3 Control 2 RandomEffects

11. Test vs. Control Variable Example Response ~ Critical Effect Control 3 Control 2 RandomEffects

12. Trade-off #1 ModelSimplicity ModelFit

13. Trade-off #2 “ExploratoryEnd” “ConfirmatoryEnd” Data-driven Theory-driven HaraldBaayen

14. Trade-off #2 “ExploratoryEnd” “ConfirmatoryEnd” Data-driven Theory-driven Roger Mundry (and many others)

15. How much do you allow the data to suggest new hypotheses? How much do you depend on a priori theory? Trade-off #2 Big Question:

16. Approach 1: more data-driven Approach 2: more theory-driven • e.g., test whether random slopes are needed (maybe not advisable) • e.g., test whether interaction for sth. is necessary or not (“o.k.” if the interaction is a control variable) • e.g., test whether sth. requires a non-linear or a linear effect (maybe o.k.)

17. Approach 1: more data-driven Approach 2: more theory-driven • THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT: • Taken to the extreme, this approach has a very high likelihood of finding any significant result • The model selection process is less transparent to outsiders (or, you have to write a LONG LONG stats section)

18. Approach 1: more data-driven Approach 2: more theory-driven • ADVANTAGES: • You don’t miss important things in your data • Your model might thus be more accurate and “more true to the data”

19. Approach 1: more data-driven Approach 2: more theory-driven • You formulate your model before you look at the data • The components of your model are guided by: •  Theory + Published Results •  General world-knowledge •  Research experience • Taken to the extreme, you can’t even make a plot before you formulate your model

20. Approach 1: more data-driven Approach 2: more theory-driven • ADVANTAGES: • It forces you to think a lot • It’s fun! • It gives you a lot of responsibility, as a scientist • Your estimates are going to be more conservative

21. Think about model (before you conduct your experiment) Approach 1: more data-driven Approach 2: more theory-driven Test whether control variables interact with test variable, or whether they are needed Build model, evaluate themodel’s assumptions Build model that better fits the assumptions

22. Dialogue with your model You need to know that there’s multiple responses per subject and item! TokenResearcher ;-) People might speed up or slow down throughout an experiment. You need to know that each item was repeated two times!

23. Keep in mind: • You have to resolve non-independencies • Your random effects structure should be maximal with respect to your experimental design

24. Protecting your researchfrom yourself: Whatever you do, your model decision should not be based on the significance of your effect

25. (JEPS Bulletin)

26. Important principle CONFIRM FIRST EXPLORE SECOND John McArdle McArdle (2011: 335) McArdle, J. J. (2011). Some ethical issues in factor analysis. In A.T. Panter & S. K. Sterba (Eds.), Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology (pp. 313-339). New York, NY: Routledge.

27. The write-up

28. Important principle BE HONEST NOT PURE John McArdle

29. Cool guidelines United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2009a). Making Data Meaningful Part 1: A guide to writing stories about numbers. New York and Geneva: United Nations. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2009b). Making Data Meaningful Part 2: A guide to presenting statistics. New York and Geneva: United Nations.

30. “We tested a linear mixed effects model with subjects and items as random effects.”

31. The write-up should reflect (as adequately as possible) the details of your model… and your model selection procedure = Reproducible Research

32. Rule of thumb: “One needs to provide sufficient information for the reader to be able to recreate the analyses.” Barr et al. (2013) Ask yourself: With the information that I provided, could I, myself, replicate the analysis?

33. How to write up • (1) "Phenomenon-oriented write-up" • (2) Appendix / Supplementary Materials

34. Example #1 “We used generalized linear mixed models to test the effect of Gender and Politeness on pitch. Subjects and items were random effects (random intercepts) (Baayen, Davidson & Bates, 2008), with random slopes for subjects and items for the effect Politeness (Barr, Levy, Scheepers & Tily, 2013). We also included a Gender * Politeness interaction into the model and if this interaction was not significant, only included the main effects. /// Q-Q plots and plots of residuals against fitted values revealed no obvious deviations from normality and homoskedasticity. We report p-values based on Likelihood Ratio Tests of the model with the main fixed effect in question (Politeness) against the model without the main fixed effect (null model, including Gender).”

35. Example #2: "Phenomenon-oriented" “We used generalized linear mixed models to test the association between voice onset time and pitch. The fixed effects quantify the effect of VOT on politeness, as well as the effect of place of articulation, vowel type and gender on politeness. The random effects quantify the by-subject and by-item variability in pitch (random intercepts), as well as the variation of the effect of VOT on pitch for subjects and items (random slopes).”

36. Mentioning assumptions “Visual inspection of residual plots revealed no obvious deviation from normality and homoskedasticity of errors.” “We checked plots of residuals against fitted values and found no indication that the normality and homoskedasticity assumption were violated.” “… indicated a problem with … We therefore log-transformed the data.”

37. Results • Provide results of likelihood ratio test (i.e., significance etc.) • Provide estimates and standard errors in the metric of the model • For poisson and logistic regression, additionally provide some exemplary back-transformed values (don’t back-transform the standard errors)

38. Likelihood Model Output Data: mag Models: magmodel.maineffect: linelength ~ condition + city_status + german_side + gender + magmodel.maineffect: trial_order + (1 + condition * city_status | subjects) + magmodel.maineffect: (1 + condition * city_status | items) magmodel: linelength ~ condition * city_status + german_side + gender + magmodel: trial_order + (1 + condition * city_status | subjects) + magmodel: (1 + condition * city_status | items) Df AIC BIC logLikChisq Chi DfPr(>Chisq) magmodel.maineffect 27 7984.5 8121.9 -3965.3 magmodel 28 7893.7 8036.2 -3918.8 92.821 1 < 2.2e-16 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

39. Important principle BE HONEST NOT PURE John McArdle

40. Make your scripts orderlyand reproducible

41. Reproducibility • Make your script online available • Avoid modifying your data manually ... make a script that records your process

42. That’s it