The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing Normality in Random Effects Models
Open accessAbstract
When one uses the unbalanced, mixed linear model $\mathbf{y}_i = \mathbf{X}_i\mathbf{\alpha} + \mathbf{Z}_i\mathbf{\beta}_i + \varepsilon_i, i = 1, \cdots, n$ to analyze data from longitudinal experiments with continuous outcomes, it is customary to assume $\varepsilon_i \sim_{\operatorname{ind}} \mathscr{N}(\mathbf{0}, \sigma^2\mathbf{I}_i)$ independent of $\mathbf{\beta}_i \sim_{\operatorname{iid}} \mathscr{N}(\mathbf{0,\Delta})$, where $\sigma^2$ and the elements of an arbitrary $\mathbf{\Delta}$ are unknown variance and covariance components. In this paper, we describe a method for checking model adequacy and, in particular, the distributional assumption on the random effects $\mathbf{\beta}_i$. We generalize the weighted normal plot to accommodate dependent, nonidentically distributed observations subject to multiple random effects for each individual unit under study. One can detect various departures from the normality assumption by comparing the expected and empirical cumulative distribution functions of standardized linear combinations of estimated residuals for each of the individual units. Through application of distributional results for a certain class of estimators to our context, we adjust the estimated covariance of the empirical cumulative distribution function to account for estimation of unknown parameters. Several examples of our method demonstrate its usefulness in the analysis of longitudinal data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data
Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (1982) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529876 · Cited by 8,923
Maximum Likelihood Approaches to Variance Component Estimation and to Related Problems
Harville, D. A. (1977) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1977.10480998 · Cited by 2,667
Cited by
(2004) · Springer Texts in Statistics · doi:10.1007/b98963 · Cited by 517
Tsai, G., Lane, H.-Y., Yang, P., Chong, M.-Y., & Lange, N. (2004) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.09.012 · Cited by 342
Self-citationVariability of human brain structure size: ages 4–20 years
Lange, N., Giedd, J. N., Xavier Castellanos, F., Vaituzis, A. C., & Rapoport, J. L. (1997) · Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/s0925-4927(96)03054-5 · Cited by 134
Self-citationBerretta, S., Lange, N., Bhattacharyya, S., Sebro, R., Garces, J., & Benes, F. M. (2004) · Hippocampus · doi:10.1002/hipo.20002 · Cited by 61
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lange, N., & Ryan, L.
- Venue
- The Annals of Statistics
- Publisher
- Institute of Mathematical Statistics
- Published
- 1989-06-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0090-5364 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2033022728
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing Normality in Random Effects Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1214/aos/1176347130
- The paper
- Lange, N., & Ryan, L. (1989). Assessing Normality in Random Effects Models. The Annals of Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176347130
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.