The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of observation-level random effect and Beta-Binomial models for modelling overdispersion in Binomial data in ecology & evolution
Open accessAbstract
Overdispersion is a common feature of models of biological data, but researchers often fail to model the excess variation driving the overdispersion, resulting in biased parameter estimates and standard errors. Quantifying and modeling overdispersion when it is present is therefore critical for robust biological inference. One means to account for overdispersion is to add an observation-level random effect (OLRE) to a model, where each data point receives a unique level of a random effect that can absorb the extra-parametric variation in the data. Although some studies have investigated the utility of OLRE to model overdispersion in Poisson count data, studies doing so for Binomial proportion data are scarce. Here I use a simulation approach to investigate the ability of both OLRE models and Beta-Binomial models to recover unbiased parameter estimates in mixed effects models of Binomial data under various degrees of overdispersion. In addition, as ecologists often fit random intercept terms to models when the random effect sample size is low (<5 levels), I investigate the performance of both model types under a range of random effect sample sizes when overdispersion is present. Simulation results revealed that the efficacy of OLRE depends on the process that generated the overdispersion; OLRE failed to cope with overdispersion generated from a Beta-Binomial mixture model, leading to biased slope and intercept estimates, but performed well for overdispersion generated by adding random noise to the linear predictor. Comparison of parameter estimates from an OLRE model with those from its corresponding Beta-Binomial model readily identified when OLRE were performing poorly due to disagreement between effect sizes, and this strategy should be employed whenever OLRE are used for Binomial data to assess their reliability. Beta-Binomial models performed well across all contexts, but showed a tendency to underestimate effect sizes when modelling non-Beta-Binomial data. Finally, both OLRE and Beta-Binomial models performed poorly when models contained <5 levels of the random intercept term, especially for estimating variance components, and this effect appeared independent of total sample size. These results suggest that OLRE are a useful tool for modelling overdispersion in Binomial data, but that they do not perform well in all circumstances and researchers should take care to verify the robustness of parameter estimates of OLRE models.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M. (2009) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6 · Cited by 17,963
Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790942 · Cited by 13,597
Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution
Bolker, B. M., Brooks, M. E., Clark, C. J., Geange, S. W., Poulsen, J. R., Stevens, M. H. H., & White, J.-S. S. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 · Cited by 8,910
Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4
Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015) · Cited by 5,924
lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2003) · CRAN: Contributed Packages · doi:10.32614/cran.package.lme4 · Cited by 2,385
Hilbe, J. M. (2011) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511973420 · Cited by 2,342
(2007) · Negative Binomial Regression · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811852.007 · Cited by 1,981
Fournier, D. A., Skaug, H. J., Ancheta, J., Ianelli, J., Magnusson, A., Maunder, M. N., Nielsen, A., & Sibert, J. (2012) · Optimization Methods and Software · doi:10.1080/10556788.2011.597854 · Cited by 1,739
Hilgenboecker, K., Hammerstein, P., Schlattmann, P., Telschow, A., & Werren, J. H. (2008) · FEMS Microbiology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01110.x · Cited by 1,334
Cited by
Brooks, M., Kristensen, K., Benthem, K., Magnusson, A., Berg, C., Nielsen, A., Skaug, H., Mächler, M., & Bolker, B. (2017) · The R Journal · doi:10.32614/rj-2017-066 · Cited by 12,915
(2017) · doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0213 · Cited by 2,813
A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology
Harrison, X. A., Donaldson, L., Correa-Cano, M. E., Evans, J., Fisher, D. N., Goodwin, C. E. D., Robinson, B. S., Hodgson, D. J., & Inger, R. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.4794 · Cited by 2,094
Self-citationDouma, J. C., & Weedon, J. T. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13234 · Cited by 719
Violating the normality assumption may be the lesser of two evils
Knief, U., & Forstmeier, W. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01587-5 · Cited by 654
Metadata
- Authors
- Harrison, X. A.
- Venue
- PeerJ
- Publisher
- PeerJ
- Published
- 2015-07-21
- Volume
- 3
- Pages
- e1114
- ISSN
- 2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W974012311
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 16.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: A comparison of observation-level random effect and Beta-Binomial models for modelling overdispersion in Binomial data in ecology & evolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7717/peerj.1114
- The paper
- Harrison, X. A. (2015). A comparison of observation-level random effect and Beta-Binomial models for modelling overdispersion in Binomial data in ecology & evolution. PeerJ. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1114
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.